Even if the AMT model wasn't available yet, they could still have used the 3-footer for a docking scene, couldn't they?
Yes, of course. The one thing about the 33in. is that the saucer had different contours than the 11 footer.
Okay, so I have an answer. The AMT Enterprise model kit went on sale in April, 1967. So they not only missed being able to get the kit out by Christmas 1966, but it also means it could not have been available for use in any of TOS’ first season episodes. That means if they had wanted to show the E in a dry dock sequence they would have had to use the 33in. miniature. To the best of my knowledge the delay in the AMT model’s was not due to them trying to correct nacelle droop.
I find myself wondering about what the writers’ conception of what refitting at a safe port might have looked like back in 1966. Not all naval refits required a dry dock. Indeed, most during the age of sail (relevant due to the CS Forrester influence) took place while at anchor in a safe harbour. It was only when major work below the waterline needed to be done that dry docks were (and still to this day) are used. Transporters could beam up supplies and technicians from the ground-based Starbase 11. Matt Jefferies was adamant about all work on the starship being able to be done from within the ship. Perhaps the 1966 conception of putting into a safe port at a starbase doesn’t require a large orbital scaffold. Maybe something like the orbital office complex, or a couple of Jefferies’ work pods (designed, but never built) would suffice?
Early in the development of the story the idea of a repair dock was there, but it was eventually jettisoned in order to save costs.
Early story drafts had the story showing off the ship in dock as well as Kirk and crew finding Finney hiding out on an asteroid. There were also two Finneys, Senior and Junior. Suffice to say a lot of elements were scaled back to make the story affordable.
At first I was thinking Phaser I would plug into Phaser III, but then I realized that the Phaser II doesn't have any more settings than the Phaser 1, so its just for better aim and longer battery life. However if the Phaser rifle is more powerful than the Phaser II then the Phaser 1 hardware might not be able to handle the energies involved so it make sense for the Phaser Rifle to completely separate.
“I realized that the Phaser II doesn't have any more settings than the Phaser 1, so its just for better aim and longer battery life.” i’d say the fact phaser 2 facilitates the power pack means phaser 2 is much more powerful than phaser 1. Phaser 1 also has an aiming mechanism - the pop up scope - so they both have means to aim them. It’s the power pack that distinguishes them. The question then is, if the power pack is what increases power, why would phaser 4 need both the pistol and its power pack? Why not two power packs? i assume the thinking was that pistol is needed to translate the power pack into usable phaser power. So might Jefferies’ phaser 4 have been something to attach 2 pistols with their attached power packs? Maybe.
Just thinking out loud (which is difficult because the Covid shot I got yesterday is making every thought fuzzy.) Phaser 1 was intended as a concealable weapon that could be carried by landing parties that would avoid them looking too confrontational when showing up in diplomatic circumstances. It can disintegrate walls, people and accomplish just about anything you need to do. Phaser 2 doesn't really appear to be more powerful. The only thing it could do that a Phaser 1 couldn't was knock a hole in a Horta (barely). The handles are power packs that can be quickly swapped out and make it easier to aim. From the effects, they don't appear to be that much more powerful (if any) than the old "Cage" style laser pistols. They can't seem to knock holes in force fields (like "The Apple") Seems to me, that if you wanted something significantly more powerful (like the "Cage" style laser cannon) you'd want something more than just the puny phaser emitter you get with Phaser 1, no matter how big batteries you put on it. Basically, because if you want anything more powerful than Phaser 2, you basically want something with the kick of a Phaser Artillery piece. So I think I'd resist the idea of a phaser rifle that only fires a Phaser 1.
Devil in the Dark: Kirk: A silicon-based life would be of an entirely different order. It's possible that our phasers might not affect it. Spock: Certainly not phaser one, which is far less powerful than phaser two. Also, why would an energy weapon have a kick? There is no projectile moving forward, creating an equal and opposite rearward force. A flashlight doesn’t kick. A phaser shouldn’t kick. Hell, if these things aim themselves, there is no reason for a stock, either. It should just be a big receiver for several power packs, perhaps combined with their pistol units. A screen of some kind to read the eye and confirm the target. A short, stubby barrel a’la the pistol and phaser 1.
An interesting thing about an energy weapon is that you shouldn’t have to worry about excess weight, balance, recoil or the projectile flying true. A projectile is affected by gravity and wind while an energy weapon should have no such concerns.
Forgot about that. I was thinking that with the controls on the Phaser 1 still used, there wouldn't be a way to turn the Phaser II higher. But there is the knob on the back now that I think of it. Anyway, I just think having the tiny phaser 1 be the guts of the very powerful rifle and all the energy flowing through it doesn't feel right.
The Phaser 1 might act as the phaser energy generator and therefor always able to generate massive energy but the tiny form-factor limits the size of the battery it can draw energy from. The Phaser 2 fixes that but you lose the concealment aspect. Or alternatively, the Phaser 2 could be the primary weapon and the Phaser 1 provides the "brains" for the weapon to work...
Not to be Captain Pedantic, but a flashlight DOES kick, but the force to too small for you to notice. Turned on and released in zero G the flashlight would accelerate at micro Gs of force away from the emitter. A proof of concept for a space craft launching laser has been demonstrated. Light has force.
I think the idea is that there are critical components in the phaser-1 that can be utilized for the phaser-2. It would be ridiculous for it to be like firing the phaser-1 into the phaser-2, as I'd imagine that such an arrangement would have led to widely disseminated shielding that could defend against phasers. That doesn't exist, so the phaser-1 doesn't simply fire into the phaser-2. The way I look at it, there's some sort of current (not strictly an electrical current; in Trek tech terms, it might be a nadion current or something similar) that is transmitted from the phaser-1 into the phaser-2. Maybe it's sent through the phaser-1's regular emitter, but if it is then it's not a phaser beam per se that the phaser-1 emits when the unit is snapped into the phaser-2. The creation of this current is the critical operation. What the phaser-2 does is amplify and multiply the intensity of the current beyond what the phaser-1 is capable of, through the use of additional components and a higher-capacity power source, and then that amplified current is sent to an emitter which can emit a more powerful beam than what the phaser-1 can emit. The critical components in the phaser-1 probably involve subspace manipulation, and their replication is difficult. What the Federation scientists discovered is that it's more energy efficient to replicate components for the phaser-2 to amplify the current from the phaser-1 than to replicate all of the critical components for the unit whole. This makes it easier to mass produce the more powerful units. Also, the sighting system (occasionally shown to be in operation, but not showcased in TOS), is dual-purpose. So, that said, if amplification is what the phaser-2 does with a current from the phaser-1, then the question would be, why can't that amplification continue to even greater power levels? If the main purpose of the rifle is only to provide a power pack with even higher capacity, then the stock would primarily be just that: something physically bigger to replace the pistol grip with. So, it make engineering sense to reuse the phaser-2 (with its own attached phaser-1) in such a weapon. The phaser-2's emitter would have power limits also, so if the purpose of the rifle is to fire phaser beams that are more powerful, which I'd assume would be something Starfleet would want, then you'd want emitters besides the phaser-2's. If the phaser-1 "current" can be amplified to those new levels, then what would be the most cost effective thing to do, in order to mass produce such rifles, could well be to snap the phaser-1 directly into the rifle phaser-3 unit, without a phaser-2 at all. On the other hand, if you want to make it more expensive (in terms of energy consumption) to produce such a deadly weapon, then you would avoid the modular use of the simpler units altogether.
I can see why you would feel it necessary to engage in such pedantry, and it’s okay - your point is fairly taken. I said a flashlight didn’t have kick, which was me being flippant. As you say,a flashlight, and thus a laser, has a measurable but not perceptible recoil. Does a phaser? Well, what is a phaser? There have been a lot of definitions over the years. But assuming it is solely an energy weapon, then even given the (weird) destructive force it is shown possessing (somehow vaporizing a human mass without a resulting explosion), it would still have nowhere near the recoil to require any stock. Which was my point- a design point. A prospective phaser 4 would not need a stock. Even floating free in space in a vacuum, because the recoil would be relative to the mass of the phaser itself and the person firing it. That person being (very slowly) propelled rearward would not need a stock. He’d need a phaser firing in the opposite direction.
A stock would primarily used for aiming, to steady the arm/hand so the shot doesn't go wide. Even with the basically imperceptible recoil of an energy weapon, keeping the aiming arm steady is essential to proper usage. Of course, this would be true mostly for sharp-shooting/sniping, as melee weapons have never needed to be precise.
Like the man said. The latest on what a Phaser is an particle bean weapon, not pure energy. So the power pack is both the source of the power and the particles. With the laws of motion there should be a perceptible push back from a phaser. Less the kick you get from a firearm and more of a shove.
I do like the idea of the Phaser I snapping into the Phaser III, I just couldn't figure out a way to justify it on a tech level. The only other issue I think would be one of practicality. Phaser I and Phaser II are used for different mission profiles, depending on if you want to be seen as visibly armed or not. If you are Pulling out the Phaser Rifle, you want to destroy things on a large scale/kill a lot of people, so you would want to maximize your firepower and add rifles to the existing number of Phaser IIs rather than just exchanging a bunch of your Phaser IIs with rifles. This assumes, of course, a limited supply of Phaser Is