Phaser banks on the Constitution class

[blssdwlf]

Here are some screencaps. The first one is of the phaser scene in question. You can tell it stays with the forward rim of the Enterprise and doesn't seem to suggest coming from the ventral area.

(Click image for full-size)


and a second set with an assortment of phasers firing from a different position (mostly the lower saucer dome) but some maybe the port side ventral?

(Click image for full-size)

[Albertese]

Yeah, those look like they're coming off of the front edge of the saucer to me. I excpect that top image of that second run is from that same area, but the others are certainly from the lower dome.

So, how do we feel about forward rim phasers? It wouldn't have occurred to me, but I suppose I don't have any specific objection to them...

--Alex

[Robert Comsol]

Albertese wrote:

---

So, how do we feel about forward rim phasers? It wouldn't have occurred to me, but I suppose I don't have any specific objection to them...

Since this is TOS-R (ion pods instead of running lights, bomb bay doors instead of loading hatches) and they didn't get the stern of the teardrop right, either, I would give it too much weight.

Bob

[CorporalCaptain]

As far as I'm concerned, anomalies shouldn't be given overriding weight. This shot from TOS-R: The Doomsday Machine looks like it might be an anomaly; it has "W-T-F-were-they-thinking" vibe about it.

[blssdwlf]

Albertese wrote:

---

Yeah, those look like they're coming off of the front edge of the saucer to me. I excpect that top image of that second run is from that same area, but the others are certainly from the lower dome.

So, how do we feel about forward rim phasers? It wouldn't have occurred to me, but I suppose I don't have any specific objection to them...

--Alex

It doesn't bother me too much since I consider TOS-R it's own continuity (ditto for all the other series) But I am a little surprised of the new location. I doubt that it was a mistake unless they rendered the phaser beams as a separate render pass and composited it incorrectly.

[Robert Comsol]

blssdwlf wrote:

---

I doubt that it was a mistake unless they rendered the phaser beams as a separate render pass and composited it incorrectly.

I wish I had your optimism. If I remember correctly the Defiant's phaser shots from the lower sensor dome at the Avenger in "In A Mirror, Darkly" would have penetrated the saucer itself, judging by the aft phaser beam angle (no Trekcore screencap available of the forward phasers firing).

Bob

[Robert Comsol]

blssdwlf wrote:

---

TOS never showed the port, starboard, midships and aft phasers, either.

How do we know that none of these phasers mentioned in "Balance of Terror" refer to phaser (bank) # 1 or # 2?

CREWMAN 1: Port weapons show ready.
CREWMAN 2: Starboard and midship weapons show ready.
MARTINE: Acknowledge. All weapons batteries ready.

TOMLINSON: Phaser one, fire.
CREWMAN: Phaser one, fire.
(Pulse phaser shots go into the darkness, rocking the Romulan ship)
TOMLINSON: Phaser two, fire.
CREWMAN: Phaser two, fire.

Because of "Phaser overload. Control circuit burnout." we never get the chance to hear another one mentioned.

Bob

[blssdwlf]

Robert Comsol wrote:

---

I wish I had your optimism. If I remember correctly the Defiant's phaser shots from the lower sensor dome at the Avenger in "In A Mirror, Darkly" would have penetrated the saucer itself, judging by the aft phaser beam angle (no Trekcore screencap available of the forward phasers firing).

I just watched that for something else and I think the scene you're thinking about they are firing photon torpedoes from the lower sensor dome while their aft phasers are simultaneously firing up. I'm assuming that the torpedoes looped back to hit the Avenger since it sounded like the hits were landing on target. If anyone is interested, I can try and screen cap that.

Robert Comsol wrote:

---

How do we know that none of these phasers mentioned in "Balance of Terror" refer to phaser (bank) # 1 or # 2?

Well, before I answer that, a quick explanation of what I think phaser banks are: a phaser bank is a big phaser energy buffer or capacitor that can then be directed partially or in whole to any phaser gun (emitter) on the ship. Multiple banks can be fired simultaneously through a single or a pair of phaser gun weapons (emitters).

We see this in "For the World is Hollow I have Touched the Sky" where both "phaser banks one and two" were fired (simultaneously) through two forward emitters. And also in "The Paradise Syndrome" where they fired the four phasers (banks) in sequence through the ventral forward phaser emitters and then once simultaneously through same set.

Now, upon watching the original FX from "Balance of Terror", when "phaser one" fired, we see three phaser pulses fire forward in sequence from three different locations from the ventral saucer area. So, it is possible that we're seeing three different phaser gun (emitters):
1. ventral starboard, ventral forward and possible ventral port
2. or ventral starboard, and the two ventral forward emitters.

One phaser (bank) in this case powered three separate emitters at different times (one after another).

[Timo]

TOS seems to lack dialogue that would associate a "bank" with a location. That is, there is no "starboard phaser bank" anywhere, is there? Just "starboard phasers" and "phaser banks", not a combination thereof.

Newer Trek does indicate that banks are associated with locations, say, in VOY "The Cloud" where there exists "the forward phaser bank". Considering the phaser emitter configuration of the VOY hero ship, though, the expression doesn't describe very well any specific individual phaser strip. It does describe a pair or perhaps a quartet of emitters capable of firing forward, though, thus possibly resembling the TOS situation, even if VOY era ships don't fire their emitters in pairs...

So there should indeed be leeway to have a "bank" power several "emitters", even if some banks are dedicated to forward emitters, others to portside ones etc. This is in fact more satisfactory terminology than having a single emitter strip be a "bank", considering how the word has classically referred to an embankment protecting a number of guns. It also caters for the meaning of this being a reservoir of destructive power, a bank vault full of death.

Timo Saloniemi

[Robert Comsol]

blssdwlf wrote:

---

A phaser bank is a big phaser energy buffer or capacitor that can then be directed partially or in whole to any phaser gun (emitter) on the ship. Multiple banks can be fired simultaneously through a single or a pair of phaser gun weapons (emitters).

Sounds correct, especially considering events in "The Cage". The phaser gun (or cannon) on Talos IV was remote powered from the ship, suggesting a phaser power emitter with the actual phaser gun being some kind of receiver for this energy (funny thing though: If they were able to pinpoint the phaser energy receiver from orbit why didn't they just fire from an orbital position ).

Bob

[blssdwlf]

My guess it that the Enterprise in order to make that same shot would have to fire from below the horizon in order to match the angle of the cannon. They were firing at the door from slightly below it. I suppose the Enterprise could've fired from above the horizon to hit the door at a slight down angle though. Maybe they didn't want the phaser beam to hit the ground behind the rock in fear of damaging the underground areas where Pike might be kept?

[Timo]

Also, orbital bombardment with phasers doesn't always involve pinpoint accuracy. We see fairly sharply focused beams when our heroes demolish Apollo's temple or Vaal, but only diffuse glow when they bombard the Iotian gangsters, or when Riker witnesses the Space Jellyfish attack against Farpoint and likens it to phaser bombardment.

Personally I agree it was due to them only wanting to open the door without damaging the passageway beyond, though. This was precision work; the pedestal device probably couldn't have "leveled a continent" even though the ship had the required oomph, but the device had the best odds of making a hole in that door.

(Incidentally, that device would probably make for a piss-poor weapon, as it is only capable of line-of-sight work but seriously lacks in mobility, operator protection, or even in the ability to aim the beam past obstacles or self-protection embankments. Is that a modified camera dolly the double bubble business end is resting on?)

Timo Saloniemi

[Metryq]

Timo wrote:

---

Is that a modified camera dolly the double bubble business end is resting on?)

Why not? The "smart guns" in ALIENS were Steadicam supports.

[Timo]

...And the comments at that link highlight the one thing wrong with using motion picture shooting hardware as stand-ins for battlefield shooting hardware. Camera work needs to be smooth and steady. Gun work needs to be fast and steady. There is no utility for steadily flowing "pans" in gun applications, as guns need to be pointed rather than panned in order to be effective. This goes for machine guns, too.

Steadicams and more conventional dollies are typically specifically designed to prevent rapid pointing, which would look awkward in film.

However, this only applies to placing a real gun on a real dolly. A futuro-gun that doesn't have much recoil or weight, placed on a dolly that has motion accentuators in place of motion dampers, is a perfectly fine idea, and might look exactly like its stage counterpart cobbled together from motion picture shooting hardware.

That said, I'm not opposed or supportive of the way the "The Cage" phaser mount was executed. I just feel the mounting rules out the idea that the phaser would be a weapon. We have seen phaser drills elsewhere in Trek, in their more compact 24th century form, and they are fine and useful engineering tools. But heavy battlefield phasers aren't very useful if hobbled by a clumsy surface mount, and might predominantly exist in vehicle-mounted applications. (Not as add-ons to vehicles, but rather as vehicles themselves - an uncrewed cannon hovering a few meters above and ahead of Sarge, slaved to her remote control, sounds like the most reasonable application.)

Then again, everything we have seen in this thread suggests that the mounting of heavy phasers indeed is a clumsy affair: Kirk's starship evidently suffered from horrible firing arc limitations, only alleviated by the installation of excessive numbers of actual emitters! Either that, or then weapons are such a tertiary application for starships that they suffer placement limitations as the result.

Timo Saloniemi

[Redfern]

Timo wrote:

---

Steadicams and more conventional dollies are typically specifically designed to prevent rapid pointing, which would look awkward in film.

Like the acts of cinematic buthery they mislabel as cinematography (aka "shakey-cam") nowadays.

Oh, yeah, I went there!

Sincerely,

Bill