If shields are supposed to protect a ship from weapons fire then how come phasers and photon torpedos can be fired from a ship with it's shields up easily, since they have to pass through the shields....
Shields And Weapons Fire
- Thread starter USS Excelsior
- Start date
Indications in The Wounded, and a DS9 episode (The Jemh'dar?), suggest things can pass through the shields if they are generating the same frequency. Presumably the phasers and torpedos are linked to the shield nutation - although you'd wonder why the enemy ship couldn't analyse it and adjust shields to the reverse.
Alternative theory I've seen is that they leave holes int he shields for them, but that sounds a little unlikely.
Alternative theory I've seen is that they leave holes int he shields for them, but that sounds a little unlikely.
I once wondered that here too. The most probable explanation I recieved was that the enemy ship would in turn need to change it's shield frequency to allow its weapons to pass through. This would leave it unprotected.
The next most probable is that right after firing the shield and weapons frequency is changed.
That's always how I figured it. In Star Wars, separate shields are used for energy-based objects (ray shields) and physical objects (particle shields) whereas Trek shields seem to do both. Normally ray shields are only used in combat because of their high energy drain, while particle shields are more frequently active to protect against small objects. In order to fire a physical weapon like a torpedo or launch a small craft, the particle shields must be down.
I would imagine that the shields are actually not set to one particular frequency, but a range. I know that the frequency was shown in Generations. Operating the shields on only one frequency seems to be very vulnerable. I do know that the have had Multi-phasic, trans-phasic, and triaxilating shields, why isn't the Federation impementing any of these technologies?
And I don't think there was any onscreen dialogue addressing the issue of firing weapons with the shields up.
That is a solution. Another ia to synch up the phaser and shields freuqencies when firing.
Well...there are several options:
-Adjust the weapon frequency to be the same. If an enemy does this, the shields become useless, such as in GEN.
-A shield may be nothing more than an extremely strong gravity (or magnetic) field that pushes objects away, thus making shields one-way. These would be useless against energy weapons though, so it seems more 'star wars' to me.
-Synch the shields to open just long enough to let a weapon through. This is how a multi-frequency shield might work, it sounds more advanced, and requires a good control computer...maybe a 26th century design.
-Adjust the weapon frequency to be the same. If an enemy does this, the shields become useless, such as in GEN.
-A shield may be nothing more than an extremely strong gravity (or magnetic) field that pushes objects away, thus making shields one-way. These would be useless against energy weapons though, so it seems more 'star wars' to me.
-Synch the shields to open just long enough to let a weapon through. This is how a multi-frequency shield might work, it sounds more advanced, and requires a good control computer...maybe a 26th century design.
With skintight shields, there's always the possibility that the weapon emitters physically peek out through the shields! That's how a Trek gunner can plausibly target the enemy weapons or engines (both of which in theory need access to the outside universe through the shields) but never quite target the enemy bridge (which need not have outside access and thus sits inside the shield).
TNG style shield bubbles are a problem for this theory, of course. Perhaps TNG ships use bubbles to deflect incoming fire, but drop those bubbles and use skinfields when themselves firing? I don't think we have seen a bit of VFX where a ship would both receive fire on her bubble shield, and pour out fire of her own...
Timo Saloniemi
TNG style shield bubbles are a problem for this theory, of course. Perhaps TNG ships use bubbles to deflect incoming fire, but drop those bubbles and use skinfields when themselves firing? I don't think we have seen a bit of VFX where a ship would both receive fire on her bubble shield, and pour out fire of her own...
Timo Saloniemi
I have for time untold assumed that "shields" involves two systems working together, occasionally mentioned separately as "shields" and "deflectors." They have to work together, because they both serve slightly different purposes. Deflectors are designed to scatter incoming energy so it doesn't strike the hull in its concentrated form, and shields are a thin, skin-tight force field protect either the entire hull or just its vulnerable spots. In this combination, it works rather like the Earth's electromagnetic field: solar winds and other cosmic ray weirdness is (generally) deflected away from the planet or diverted into the radiation belts, and anything powerful enough to get through that -- like a coronal mass ejection -- strikes the upper atmosphere without directly baking us puny humans on the surface. Some of that energy will get through no matter what and, on a very bad day, fry a couple of transformers in our major cities (which, I figure, is why consoles sometimes explode when the ship takes fire).
Firing with shields up is probably a little like trying to send a powerful radio signal through Earth's electromagnetic field. Certain frequencies probably would get scattered on the way up, so you'd have to either compensate for that with some tricky signal processing, or aim the signal so that it LEAVES the EM field going in the right direction.
On the other hand, it seems possible at least some of the time to create force fields that only block things going one way, so shields might have an element of that technology as well.
< P.S. Newtype's first post after long hiatus. Not that anyone missed me
>
Firing with shields up is probably a little like trying to send a powerful radio signal through Earth's electromagnetic field. Certain frequencies probably would get scattered on the way up, so you'd have to either compensate for that with some tricky signal processing, or aim the signal so that it LEAVES the EM field going in the right direction.
On the other hand, it seems possible at least some of the time to create force fields that only block things going one way, so shields might have an element of that technology as well.
< P.S. Newtype's first post after long hiatus. Not that anyone missed me
>In Mudd's Women, Kirk ordered the "deflector shields" extended to protect Mudd's planet in the asteroid field. Obviously, this is not a skin-tight force-field: it can be extended a substantial distance (at great power draw).
In a two-system model, it must have been the long-range system.
It's always somewhat confusing as to which system is meant.
In the series, we tended to have "deflectors," "shields," and "deflector shields" used interchangeably. I don't recall them ever using them describing separate systems explicitly (or at least consistently).
In TMP, we have "recommend defensive posture: screens and shields" and "the new screens held." We also have "Forcefields up full. Deflectors: now." I think "screens" and "forcefields" refer to the same thing, while "deflectors" and "shields" both refer to the other system. (But it could be the opposite.)
In TWOK, we have two systems as well: "energize defense fields" (showing the grid filling-in) but "still running with shields down." Here, the "defense fields" appear to be the inner defense but seem to have no significant defensive capability against ship weapons. "Shields" now refers to the primary defense to weapons: what was called "screens" or "forcefields" in TMP.
Edit: On the other hand, "energize defense fields" may be a mere preparation for later raising the shields. Bring the shield emitters to a ready state, but don't yet actually project the shield.
Later, they seem to use "deflector" only for the main deflector and other deflector beams used to keep debris and such out of the ship's path (as well as secondary purposes such as the any-particle-projector-of-incredible-power). They continue to use "shields" to refer to the primary defensive forcefields.
In a two-system model, it must have been the long-range system.
It's always somewhat confusing as to which system is meant.
In the series, we tended to have "deflectors," "shields," and "deflector shields" used interchangeably. I don't recall them ever using them describing separate systems explicitly (or at least consistently).
In TMP, we have "recommend defensive posture: screens and shields" and "the new screens held." We also have "Forcefields up full. Deflectors: now." I think "screens" and "forcefields" refer to the same thing, while "deflectors" and "shields" both refer to the other system. (But it could be the opposite.)
In TWOK, we have two systems as well: "energize defense fields" (showing the grid filling-in) but "still running with shields down." Here, the "defense fields" appear to be the inner defense but seem to have no significant defensive capability against ship weapons. "Shields" now refers to the primary defense to weapons: what was called "screens" or "forcefields" in TMP.
Edit: On the other hand, "energize defense fields" may be a mere preparation for later raising the shields. Bring the shield emitters to a ready state, but don't yet actually project the shield.
Later, they seem to use "deflector" only for the main deflector and other deflector beams used to keep debris and such out of the ship's path (as well as secondary purposes such as the any-particle-projector-of-incredible-power). They continue to use "shields" to refer to the primary defensive forcefields.
In TNG usage, it could be surmised that "deflector" is a generic name for the overall technology, "navigational deflector" is one special application of that, and "shields" is the traditional name for a combat-configured deflector system.
This simplistic usage might then hide any underlying technological complexity (say, "shields" consisting of varying subtypes of "deflectors" such as "phased energy deflectors" and "kinetic energy deflectors"), or then reflect the underlying simplicity (any application of the basic "deflector" technology automatically blocks all kinds of threats, the only variable being the strength of the overall effect).
Then again, it could simply be that the lingo in TNG has been "weathered" by centuries of use, and that there is little to be learned from the technology by listening to this anachronistic jargon. Much like the original meaning of "starboard" and "port" has been long lost, there no longer being any sort of a steering board on the right side of the ship and there seldom being a preference for having the gangplank on the left side, the original distinction between "deflector" and "shield" could have faded to obscurity. The choice of words in the 24th century would be by senseless tradition, or by personal preference.
Timo Saloniemi
This simplistic usage might then hide any underlying technological complexity (say, "shields" consisting of varying subtypes of "deflectors" such as "phased energy deflectors" and "kinetic energy deflectors"), or then reflect the underlying simplicity (any application of the basic "deflector" technology automatically blocks all kinds of threats, the only variable being the strength of the overall effect).
Then again, it could simply be that the lingo in TNG has been "weathered" by centuries of use, and that there is little to be learned from the technology by listening to this anachronistic jargon. Much like the original meaning of "starboard" and "port" has been long lost, there no longer being any sort of a steering board on the right side of the ship and there seldom being a preference for having the gangplank on the left side, the original distinction between "deflector" and "shield" could have faded to obscurity. The choice of words in the 24th century would be by senseless tradition, or by personal preference.
Timo Saloniemi
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
Shields are modulated to a specific frequency, when a weapon such as a torpedo or phaser is modulated to the exact same frequency they can pass directly through the shield, this is why in the film 'Star Trek: Generations' the Klingon Bird of Prey found out the Enterprises shield modulation, remodulate their own weapons to that modulation and was able to fire straight through the Enterprises shields.
If a starships own weapons were at a different frequency to their own shields they would end up damaging their own shielding.
If a starships own weapons were at a different frequency to their own shields they would end up damaging their own shielding.
I think you're on the right track.
The best way, IMHO, to view this is to consider what the two names actually describe, and where you'd want that to occur.
A shield is a physical (or in this case, "pseudo-physical") barrier. It's intended to take damage that would otherwise penetrate to the more delicate, sensitive, and critical materials and systems (and personnel!) underneath it.
A "deflector" on the other hand, if you take the name seriously, doesn't absorb incoming energy, but rather deflects it so that it won't hit the target. This doesn't mean "reflect back" necessary, just "turn it away" enough to miss your ship.
If you had a force-field that was able to bend incoming electromagnetic rays, or to "push aside" incoming matter... it makes sense that you'd want this as far away from the skin of the ship as practical... the further away it is, the less it has to deflect whatever its deflecting in order to accomplish the goal of making sure that the incoming fire doesn't hit your ship.
So I see the shields as the "second skin" forcefield armor... and the deflectors as the ovoid "bubble" that the ship projects at a distance and makes shots miss the target.
I just watched Arena, and there Sulu and Kirk used the term "screens" as the main defense that can be raised and lowered. (Specifically, Sulu called them "defense screens" WRT the Enterprise and "deflector screens" WRT the Gorn ship.
I think we have "deflector sheilds" (and just "deflectors" for short), "shields," and "screens" all referring to the same thing, which is perhaps just anachronistic jargon for any type of energy-deflecting technology, as Timo says.
The TMP and TWOK dialog that specify two separate systems still confuse me, though. Especially the TMP lines -- I'm willing to dismiss the TWOK "energize defense fields" as being a mere preparation for subsequent raising of the shields.
Actually, I think the notion of manually raising and lowering shields is a little silly. We've seen that the "navigational deflectors" snap on when there's something to deflect. A reasonable overall deflector system might have, at each deflector emitter, a sensor and a deflector beam: when something to deflect is detected by the sensor, the beam fires to deflect it. This should always be at the ready, no need to "raise it" for combat. On the other hand, there may occasionally be a need to override it in certain regions, which could be termed "lowering a shield." The term "raise shields" could simply mean canceling all overrides, including transporter overrides. Indeed, lowered, not raised, would be the exceptional condition.
Firing through this type of system would simply require passing the weapon characteristics and trajectory to the deflector network, configuring it not to fire its deflector beams at the outbound weapon.
(In TNG, of course, we've seen that it isn't a network of deflector beams, but rather a forcefield bubble with a discernible edge. I think this makes less sense, but it's certainly canon TNG.)
Edit: of course for light-speed beam weapons, having the deflector emitters continuously emit a deflection beam would be essential -- no time to detect, track, target, and fire a deflector beam at a specific incoming fire beam.
I think we have "deflector sheilds" (and just "deflectors" for short), "shields," and "screens" all referring to the same thing, which is perhaps just anachronistic jargon for any type of energy-deflecting technology, as Timo says.
The TMP and TWOK dialog that specify two separate systems still confuse me, though. Especially the TMP lines -- I'm willing to dismiss the TWOK "energize defense fields" as being a mere preparation for subsequent raising of the shields.
Actually, I think the notion of manually raising and lowering shields is a little silly. We've seen that the "navigational deflectors" snap on when there's something to deflect. A reasonable overall deflector system might have, at each deflector emitter, a sensor and a deflector beam: when something to deflect is detected by the sensor, the beam fires to deflect it. This should always be at the ready, no need to "raise it" for combat. On the other hand, there may occasionally be a need to override it in certain regions, which could be termed "lowering a shield." The term "raise shields" could simply mean canceling all overrides, including transporter overrides. Indeed, lowered, not raised, would be the exceptional condition.
Firing through this type of system would simply require passing the weapon characteristics and trajectory to the deflector network, configuring it not to fire its deflector beams at the outbound weapon.
(In TNG, of course, we've seen that it isn't a network of deflector beams, but rather a forcefield bubble with a discernible edge. I think this makes less sense, but it's certainly canon TNG.)
Edit: of course for light-speed beam weapons, having the deflector emitters continuously emit a deflection beam would be essential -- no time to detect, track, target, and fire a deflector beam at a specific incoming fire beam.
Agreed. Which is why I always smile in those TOS episodes where Sulu mentions "Our deflectors just went up. Something's approaching us..." like the shields actually know there's a problem before the CREW knows. I figure it's like one of those car alarms that can't tell the difference between a crow bar and a falling pine cone hitting its windshield; the automatic deflector shield (which does make one appearance in TNG "The Arsenal of Freedom") probably has all kinds of false alarms, like when the ship passes too close to a Coronal Mass Ejection or momentarily crosses the beam of a distant pulsar, the deflectors snap on, and after a few seconds the tactical officer announces, "Automatic deflector screens just went up. No problem, just a solar flare."
But that for "deflectors," the big force field that diverts energy well away from the ship. In Errand of Mercy the deflectors didn't seem to do much to stop a barrage of Klingon torpedoes from smacking into the hull, so I would think that shields probably are more complicated and more dangerous (you don't want them going up while somebody's doing EVA work on the hull, right?) so require manual order from the tactical officer to be activated. And I like this idea because it helps to explain how Chang's torpedoes keep blasting divots out of the hull even with the shields up; the shields don't keep torpedoes away from the ship, they just keep the warheads from penetrating the armor. When the shields collapse, the armor gets that much thinner.
Well for deflectors, I think it simply makes more sense that outgoing energy beams don't have to worry about being deflected in the first place, since the lines of force would be arranged only to divert INCOMING particles; the tactical officer might have to slightly adjust his aim to compensate for some drift by the energy field, but it wouldn't be really noticeable.
As for skin-tight shields, it's perfectly conceivable that those parts of the hull that contain sensors and weapon emplacements would be either uncovered (which explains why starships are able to knock out each other's weapon systems even with shields up) or covered by a force field that is transparent to certain types of radiation. I prefer the former theory, or else every time we hear a Captain shout "target their weapons array!" should be immediately followed by the tactical officer asking "Before or after we drill through seventy gigawatts worth of defensive shielding?"
