RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,178
Posts: 5,435,683
Members: 24,946
Currently online: 634
Newest member: JDobbs

TrekToday headlines

Trek Screenwriter Washington D.C. Appearance
By: T'Bonz on Oct 23

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Yelchin In New Indie Thriller
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17


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 October 14 2012, 04:47 PM   #76
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

^ That's because shattered glass is a really nasty thing to have spraying into your lap in the middle of a combat situation; if you can't make the glass armored, you don't want it anywhere near you when you're under fire.

Starfleet has transparent aluminum, which -- I should hope -- won't shatter into a spray of tiny sharp particles if the Argo crashes into something.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 14 2012, 04:57 PM   #77
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

...Nor do they have useful payload areas or practical means of loading or offloading, or ways to keep water out during fording or swimming, it seems.

Why not? It's not as if we should expect 24th century powerplants or motors to be so clumsy as to take up as much room as a diesel or gasoline engine and transmission today. A future windshield wouldn't get scraped and clogged by dust, either. And why doesn't the suspension work better in the future?

Okay, we can argue that the Argo has a windshield and weather cover, but it is based on the technology of the TAS life support fields. Picard would obviously not deploy that, as he wants to feel the wind tugging on his ha... uh, face. Nor would he deploy it when the locals attack, because TAS fields don't stop weapons fire.

The other shortcomings remain inexplicable, though. Why isn't Worf's gun stabilized? Why is there no proper forcefield generator aboard, a perfectly regular shuttlecraft one, capable of stopping artillery shells and hand disruptors? I mean, if the vehicle were configured for "civilian" missions, the generator could well be omitted - but why would the gun be present in that case?

I don't want to evaluate the Argo as the cutting edge of Starfleet surface combat vehicle development, because obviously that's not what it is. I don't know what it is for, but that's not a big problem. But even as a general all-terrain vehicle, it fails on practicability grounds, as it will be really wet while fording and is difficult to climb into, or to load.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 14 2012, 05:12 PM   #78
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

It also seems to be severely lacking in built-in sensor equipment, considering a platoon of pre-warp natives were able to totally ambush them without any warning at all.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 14 2012, 08:33 PM   #79
mupps
Lieutenant
 
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
^ That's because shattered glass is a really nasty thing to have spraying into your lap in the middle of a combat situation; if you can't make the glass armored, you don't want it anywhere near you when you're under fire.

Starfleet has transparent aluminum
, which -- I should hope -- won't shatter into a spray of tiny sharp particles if the Argo crashes into something.
So do we
http://www.ohgizmo.com/2012/05/09/di...uminum-exists/
mupps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 14 2012, 08:40 PM   #80
mupps
Lieutenant
 
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

Timo wrote: View Post
...Nor do they have useful payload areas or practical means of loading or offloading, or ways to keep water out during fording or swimming, it seems.

Why not? It's not as if we should expect 24th century powerplants or motors to be so clumsy as to take up as much room as a diesel or gasoline engine and transmission today. A future windshield wouldn't get scraped and clogged by dust, either. And why doesn't the suspension work better in the future?

Okay, we can argue that the Argo has a windshield and weather cover, but it is based on the technology of the TAS life support fields. Picard would obviously not deploy that, as he wants to feel the wind tugging on his ha... uh, face. Nor would he deploy it when the locals attack, because TAS fields don't stop weapons fire.

The other shortcomings remain inexplicable, though. Why isn't Worf's gun stabilized? Why is there no proper forcefield generator aboard, a perfectly regular shuttlecraft one, capable of stopping artillery shells and hand disruptors? I mean, if the vehicle were configured for "civilian" missions, the generator could well be omitted - but why would the gun be present in that case?

I don't want to evaluate the Argo as the cutting edge of Starfleet surface combat vehicle development, because obviously that's not what it is. I don't know what it is for, but that's not a big problem. But even as a general all-terrain vehicle, it fails on practicability grounds, as it will be really wet while fording and is difficult to climb into, or to load.

Timo Saloniemi
Or perhaps in a surprising twist for Starfleet, it was decided that the Argo should be just a simple bare bones GMV you could pretty much repir with a rock and some twine if needed?.
mupps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 14 2012, 09:02 PM   #81
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

It also seems to be severely lacking in built-in sensor equipment, considering a platoon of pre-warp natives were able to totally ambush them without any warning at all.
Perhaps we could blame that on the ion storm?

Of course, story logic would best be served if Shinzon hired these goons to deny Picard the chance to stop and think. He might then have given them some stealth/jamming aids as well.

Or perhaps in a surprising twist for Starfleet, it was decided that the Argo should be just a simple bare bones GMV you could pretty much repir with a rock and some twine if needed?.
That doesn't explain why it would lack dry fording ability or didn't have an easily accessible loading area.

On the other hand, TAS style forcefields would be "barebones" technology by Trek standards, probably much more reliable than crankshafts or spring suspension. So the weatherproofing, dustproofing and fording issues might be solved by assuming such a field. Only the awkwardness of Worf's position might need critique, then.

I could also see Starfleet having nothing to do with the Argo, of course. It might be Picard's very own hobby project, about as practicable for mobility as the horses or sailing ships that Picard loves to operate on the holodeck. For all we know, it is an exact replica of a 200-year-old design that pleases Picard's eye and offers a sufficient challenge to his driving skills, buttocks durability and so forth. The one really odd thing about that would then be Worf's cannon.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 14 2012, 11:04 PM   #82
mupps
Lieutenant
 
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

Timo wrote: View Post
That doesn't explain why it would lack dry fording ability or didn't have an easily accessible loading area.
Well most gunwagons nowadays are not amphibious or indeed sealed and can ford usually around the 500mm-750mm mark which is enough for most streams and low water courses.
If you're fording a river/water obstacle deeper then that then you might use something else or daisy chain vehicles like we do now.
We also sling kit on the outside of vehicles and the Argo buggy is fairly small to have much in th way of load carry capacity. The Argo looks to me more like a SEAL DPV etc.


Light, fast only used for a few Days recce/strike missions at most and you'd just sling kit onto it.
It's a very specialist type of vehicle.

My thinking is in ST it was designed for use on planest where shuttles/transporters are unreliable due to weather, geography, enemy actions (jammers ect).

Instead of having to be dropped off and walk you get a light strike buggy.
If it get's wasted, no big deal. You can pretty much replicate them as needed.



On the other hand, TAS style forcefields would be "barebones" technology by Trek standards, probably much more reliable than crankshafts or spring suspension. So the weatherproofing, dustproofing and fording issues might be solved by assuming such a field. Only the awkwardness of Worf's position might need critique, then.
We never really saw much in the way of defensive shielding in ground combat anyway....plot devices I guess.

I could also see Starfleet having nothing to do with the Argo, of course. It might be Picard's very own hobby project, about as practicable for mobility as the horses or sailing ships that Picard loves to operate on the holodeck. For all we know, it is an exact replica of a 200-year-old design that pleases Picard's eye and offers a sufficient challenge to his driving skills, buttocks durability and so forth. The one really odd thing about that would then be Worf's cannon.

Quite possible...
mupps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 26 2012, 02:48 AM   #83
KamenRiderBlade
Lieutenant Commander
 
KamenRiderBlade's Avatar
 
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

They've shown Phaser proof barrels / containers in many phaser fights.

Why couldn't they have used the same material as those barrels / containers and make either small scales or plates and mount them like modern body armor?

Interceptor armor has large plates for front / back.

Dragonskin is based off of lots of tiny discs arranged in a chain mail esque fashion.

Either way would've protected a person from energy blasts in a fire fight.

It makes no sense.

Worf was able to make a temporary shield for that Holodeck malfunction episode.

If they took the time to build a proper portable one, it could probably take quite a few hits before going down.

The sheer number of redshirts that could've avoided dying due to energy blasts.
KamenRiderBlade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 26 2012, 07:29 AM   #84
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

They've shown Phaser proof barrels / containers in many phaser fights.
That'd depend on the setting. The barrel is not shattered or vaporized - but perhaps it is stunned?

In any case, the phaser vaporization effect does not propagate indefinitely in a given substance, and doesn't easily hop from one substance to another. In TOS, the victim of a phaser hit disappears, but the floor beneath him does not. Or, say, Valeris in ST6 fires at a kettle, removing the metal, but the organics inside remain. Quite possibly a weapon tuned to remove you from existence would fail to remove a random barrel from existence by miss or ricochet.

Would it be possible to utilize that property to create armor? Say, if you wore kitchen-grade steel, would the phaser remove that but leave your body unhurt?

Probably. But would that do any good? If your enemy knew the substance you wear as armor, he would just tune his phaser to remove both the substance and your body from existence with a single shot. Phasers can handle "composite" targets to some degree: a TOS hit at a Klingon wearing a chainmailish shirt and holding a gun removes the Klingon, the shirt and the gun alike.

Perhaps you could surprise the enemy by wearing a different type of armor to every battle. But no single substance would in any way be phaserproof - only surprising combinations, preferably with a lot of airspace in between, would.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 26 2012, 07:40 PM   #85
KamenRiderBlade
Lieutenant Commander
 
KamenRiderBlade's Avatar
 
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

Over the years, the Phaser effect on life forms have varied from burning a giant wound, vaporizing, punching a hole, exploding. It's never consistant.

That has always annoyed me.
KamenRiderBlade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 26 2012, 11:31 PM   #86
Undead
Continuity Spackle
 
Undead's Avatar
 
Location: Unicron (The mockingjay soars)
Send a message via ICQ to Undead
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

That's probably because different settings were shown on different types of phasers.
__________________

"If you think you're brave enough to walk the path of honor, then follow me into the dragon's den."


Knight Exemplar
Undead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 29 2012, 06:06 PM   #87
ProwlAlpha
Fleet Captain
 
ProwlAlpha's Avatar
 
Location: Florrum
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

As a former soldier, I, for one, would rather go into a potentially dangerous situation with body armor despite its weight than going with out because of the comfort-ability issue, I would rather live.

That is the one thing that generally bugged me was the lack of personal protection in the Trek Universe. I understand about not taking a security team to a diplomatic mission, but any mission where there is a big unknown, such as a brand-new planet, I would take the cumbersome gear.

Granted all the gear will be nullified by a writer, but at least have allusions to it or show a redshirt using them. As for the Klingons' armor, it may have started out as armor, but they are just uniforms.

I always kinda of thought as the Argo as a low-profile for low-tech worlds and there are various different level tech vehicles for each mission profile.
__________________
"As my sweet mother always said, 'son, if one hostage is good, two are better, and three, well, that's just good business!'"
ProwlAlpha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 30 2012, 06:17 PM   #88
KamenRiderBlade
Lieutenant Commander
 
KamenRiderBlade's Avatar
 
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

ProwlAlpha wrote: View Post
As a former soldier, I, for one, would rather go into a potentially dangerous situation with body armor despite its weight than going with out because of the comfort-ability issue, I would rather live.

That is the one thing that generally bugged me was the lack of personal protection in the Trek Universe. I understand about not taking a security team to a diplomatic mission, but any mission where there is a big unknown, such as a brand-new planet, I would take the cumbersome gear.

Granted all the gear will be nullified by a writer, but at least have allusions to it or show a redshirt using them. As for the Klingons' armor, it may have started out as armor, but they are just uniforms.

I always kinda of thought as the Argo as a low-profile for low-tech worlds and there are various different level tech vehicles for each mission profile.
My position stands. They had phaser proof barrels within Starfleet cargo bays. With that, they could've made the equivalent of futuristic Interceptor armor or Dragon Skin armor. The sheer amount of lives it would've saved would be tremendous. Damn you writers and gleefully killing random Red / Yellow shirts.
KamenRiderBlade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 31 2012, 09:11 AM   #89
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

Where exactly do we see a phaserproof barrel?

We have seen fancy things such as a phaserproof painting in "Conspiracy"...

(Damn, no blu-ray screencaps at TrekCore!)

...but no proof that it was hit with a kill beam. Stun beams are a good combat option in most situations, as it rarely is tactically necessary to permanently remove an enemy combatant from the equation. Kill settings are useful mainly when you want to assassinate, or when you want to wrestle permanent control of a location out of the hands of an enemy that otherwise might have the ability to regroup. But our heroes and even our villains fairly seldom assassinate, as their true tactical goals lie elsewhere. And most fights in Star Trek do not involve wrestling control of a location in the classic infantry manner - rather, they are exchanges of fire in a starship corridor or on a planetside location in a short-lived ambush or raid situation that is not going to have any permanent consequences.

So, is there a situation where a barrel or comparable structure would have withstood a kill phaser?

There are situations where a definite kill phaser hits a wall and/or a floor in, say, "In the Hands of the Prophets".

http://ds9.trekcore.com/gallery/albu...hehands216.jpg

Sometimes TPTB introduce a scorch mark there, sometimes not; typically, it disappears within a few shots anyway. But walls have a good excuse to be phaserproof.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 31 2012, 07:00 PM   #90
KamenRiderBlade
Lieutenant Commander
 
KamenRiderBlade's Avatar
 
Re: Why the lack of personal protection?

Timo wrote: View Post
Where exactly do we see a phaserproof barrel?

We have seen fancy things such as a phaserproof painting in "Conspiracy"...

(Damn, no blu-ray screencaps at TrekCore!)

...but no proof that it was hit with a kill beam. Stun beams are a good combat option in most situations, as it rarely is tactically necessary to permanently remove an enemy combatant from the equation. Kill settings are useful mainly when you want to assassinate, or when you want to wrestle permanent control of a location out of the hands of an enemy that otherwise might have the ability to regroup. But our heroes and even our villains fairly seldom assassinate, as their true tactical goals lie elsewhere. And most fights in Star Trek do not involve wrestling control of a location in the classic infantry manner - rather, they are exchanges of fire in a starship corridor or on a planetside location in a short-lived ambush or raid situation that is not going to have any permanent consequences.

So, is there a situation where a barrel or comparable structure would have withstood a kill phaser?

There are situations where a definite kill phaser hits a wall and/or a floor in, say, "In the Hands of the Prophets".

http://ds9.trekcore.com/gallery/albu...hehands216.jpg

Sometimes TPTB introduce a scorch mark there, sometimes not; typically, it disappears within a few shots anyway. But walls have a good excuse to be phaserproof.

Timo Saloniemi
That is a funny screen cap of sisko falling on the assailant.



Honestly, I'd have to look for the situation or screen cap at some point.
KamenRiderBlade 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 05:12 PM.

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