TOS Phaser batteries

[blssdwlf]

It is likely that the TOS Enterprise is covered with phaser gun emitters that are powered off her four phaser banks.

This is one way to explain how at least three out of four "phasers" are shown firing from the very same location at the saucer underside in "Paradise Syndrome". But it's an odd usage of "bank", both because the episode never mentions that word, and because the other episodes where the concept of "phaser bank" actually is mentioned, it is a piece of technology that does its own targeting, apparently independently of other banks.

If we look at the series as a whole there are examples of multiple phaser banks firing simultaneously through the same emitter points and as you write, independently targeting enemies.

"Arena": multiple banks locked onto Gorn ship. We don't explicitly see all banks firing but each time Sulu fires it's a pair of beams from the same emitter locations.
"Errand of Mercy": multiple phaser banks returning fire but we only see 2 emitter points being used (starboard and forward).
"Who Mourns for Adonais": All phaser banks fire thru the same 2 emitter points. Sustained firing.
"For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky": Phaser banks 1 and 2 simultaneously fired from 2 emitter points.

Interesting, "For The World Is Hollow..." called out "phaser banks one and two" and is then just referred to as "phasers one and two".

KIRK: Prepare phaser banks one and two, Mister Sulu.
SULU: Aye, sir.
...
SULU: Phasers one and two locked in and ready.
​

With that example, we can infer that in "The Paradise Syndrome" that "phaser one" thru "phaser four" are phaser banks one thru four and they can fire in sequence and simultaneously through the same emitters just like phaser banks one and two did in "For The World Is Hollow...".

Also we have "Balance of Terror" where we see "phaser one" power 3 emitters in sequence before switching to "phaser two".

This is why, IMHO, the four phaser banks on the Enterprise can be used to independently act and fire through any of the ship's phaser gun emitters.

...The refit then replaces each of the quartets of lesser emitters with a single bigger one. Which also means that the formerly invisibly small guns now become visible to the audience!

That could very well be.

 

[Timo]

Hmm. Could we draw connections to Phaser One and Phaser Two of "Devil in the Dark" fame?

That is, we only ever hear of "phasers" up to "four", and "phaser banks" up to "two". And the only occurrence AFAIK of "four" is when the heroes battle an object the size of Earth's Moon. Perhaps these are power levels, there existing a standard "one-two punch" fighting technique where you first hit the enemy to slow him down, then pour more destruction on him that would be wasted if he still retained the ability to dodge.

Dodgy still appears to be the word for analyses of this sort. I'm partial towards the "four-barrel Gatling" almost purely because it's the trivial solution - it retains the fandom concept of "bank" as a cluster of emitters. It doesn't have too many other merits, though. If "phasers 1 through 4" are the same thing as "banks 1 through 4", then the cluster model doesn't work. If they are not, how can Sulu correctly decipher his orders in light of the "For the World is Hollow" secondary meaning and the resulting ambiguity?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[MantaBase]

Timo Saloniemi

Well, this is interesting - excuse the broken record part a moment. the FJ plans are as I said above - 3 phaser banks - 6 emitters - 2 torpedo tubes. However, those are the general plans for the Constitution.

If you look at (albeit not official) plans of the Enterprise specifically, they may still have the same number of banks, maybe 4, but Enterprise has 12 emitters on turrets, 4 torpedo tubes (forward facing) and in one set an aft torpedo tube (single). This is more consistent with on-screen info.

However, you might consider that for TOS (not TOS-R), there were some realities that might have made the dialog conflict with the visual.

• First, the folks writing the show could get sloppy - the design was not set in stone.
• Then of course there are script changes which would be more focused on sounding good than being accurate.
• Then there are budgets - both time and money. The FX folks may have been provided a needs list - but not the dialog. I am pretty sure those phaser shots are frame by frame added to the scene by hand - and they needed to get them done fast.
• Then there is the fact that the emitters are not easy to see on film - in fact, they may not physically be on the ship model.
• There would have been a bit of pressure to re-use FX scenes.

It may be a lot to ask for the dialog and FX to be accurate to the ship - consistently. So, when they did TOS-R, they had an opportunity to clear these things up. Did they? I have seen very few TOS-R. Did they make it worse? Not change it at all?

 

[blssdwlf]

So, when they did TOS-R, they had an opportunity to clear these things up. Did they? I have seen very few TOS-R. Did they make it worse? Not change it at all?

Not better or worse but just different. TOS-R "standardized" on blue phaser beams. The two emitter points appear to be where the lower ring is on the bottom of the saucer rather than different points on the saucer itself. The phaser pulses in "BOT" and "Errand of Mercy" all appear to come from a single phaser emitter on the starboard side. They did have additional emitter points like in "The Doomsday Machine" where the forward rim of the saucer had two beams emit from it.

edit: Further viewing of other episodes of the phasers firing in TOS-R show them sometimes coming from the bottom dome as well as the ring ("Who Mourns for Adonais") and in "The Ultimate Computer" the TOS-R effects had the phaser coming from a point much higher than the bottom ring. You can also peruse thru tos.trekcore.com's screengrabs to see the differences in firing locations.

Also, in the the TV series the Enterprise had 6 forward tubes vs the FJ plans of a smaller count.

 

[Wingsley]

If you just take TOS-in-isolation, whether it's TOS or TOS-R, you're left with a mess. It would've been different if the "remastered" version of "Elaan of Troyius" had shown the Enterprise doing a cartwheel-in-space to fire torpedoes from multiple launchers at different points on the ship's hulls, but all they showed was a somewhat improved shot of several torpedoes launching from the lower saucer. So they didn't really resolve the "all tubes to bear" issue in that scene.

It's a little ridiculous that the TMP-era Enterprise seems strategically dotted with a-dozen-and-a-half phasers from stem to stern, but they never showed any phasers firing except those on the saucer; as if nobody ever knew those weapons were there. ENT's "In a Mirror, Darkly" (vis-a-vis the Defiant) finally seemed to acknowledge that earlier, TOS-era Constitution-class vessels did indeed have multiple weapons, including aft phasers and torpedoes. The escape scene also made it clear why star-cruisers need to be so heavily armed: they need to be prepared to deal with multiple attackers in the event the ship finds herself surrounded. This would seem to make it clear that all Constitution-class vessels, regardless of era, are heavily armed with multiple firing arcs: forward, flank, and aft.

 

[Timo]

What all of Star Trek remains consistent on is that there's no point in firing more than two beams at a single opponent. Apparently

1) five beams aren't stronger than two, and
2) enemy shields won't be brought down faster by firing at multiple points.

The only sensible explanation for 1 IMHO is the ability to channel the total output of the ship's phaser power system through any single (double) emitter, generally the most advantageously placed one. And since Kirk is a bold skipper, he tends to face his opponents, making the bowmost emitter or "bank" the preferred one. There just aren't situations where he'd allow himself to get surrounded. Other skippers use their ships differently, and thus fire through various advantageously positioned emitters, in both the ENT and TNG eras.

The TOS movies are a special case of sorts: only ST2:TWoK shows any phaser action, and there the ship is insufficiently crewed. For all we know, Kirk had no aft phaser crews! Or then the old schoolship had many of her guns deactivated.

As for 2, there's little dialogue to determine the best way to defeat shields. But "shields" is a nice excuse for making starships "point targets" and allowing the simplification of fight VFX. And really, if Kirk could fire at enemy armpits with pinpoint accuracy (as space fights realistically ought to work), some of the romance of nautical fighting would be lost.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Crazy Eddie]

For one thing, I chalk it up to limitations of VFX shots and also limitations of the imaginations of the artists. There are a lot of different things that should be happening in starship combat that we never see; non-inertial movement, for example, where a starship swings its bow around to face an opponent without changing its direction of flight, or where a starship pulls a "crazy ivan" along its trajectory and then flies off in the opposite direction without having to demonstrate a definite turn radius. We should see starships fighting at various orientations (which we finally kinda-sorta got to see at the end of Nemesis), fighting in multiple axises and high angles of attack, and most importantly, fighting at ranges where both the shooter and the target are not visible in the same camera frame.

As for multiple beams, I can't disagree more. I actually think that there's a practical upper limit to how much power you can actually squeeze through a phaser bank without blowing it to bits, and I think that amount of power is both far less than the ship should generate and far more than is actually GOOD for the phaser bank. So I think under most circumstances, the captain ordering "Fire all phasers!" should look more like this:


I also think that the idea of shields having a definable "percentage" of strength is something Star Trek needs to STOP FUCKING DOING FOREVER. I think shields should be treated like a layer of deployable energy-based armor that can dampen but not totally stop enemy weapons fire; your ship can still be damaged even with its shields up, and if your enemy hits you with enough firepower he can damage the parts of your ship that make your shields WORK (e.g. the deflector grid built into the outer hull of your ship that runs extensively through your entire hull, or the power systems that feed them). In this sense, spamming your enemies with phasers and torpedoes to try and saturate his defenses might seem a lot like "spray and pray" rather than the "peck him to death" approach favorted in TNG+, but the latter approach is a lot like depicting a boxing match in which two fighters square up against each other and then take turns punching each other in the face until one of them decides he's had enough and lays down for a while.

 

[Timo]

I'm not sure what the point of "disagreeing" here would be. Trek is quite consistent about not using multiple beams, and about how the shields deal with incoming fire. If you want a different mechanism, you can have a different scifi show, but this is a Trek forum.

Sure, making of Trek involves VFX limitations. And budgetary limitations. And censorship limitations. Trek also makes plenty of its own arbitrary limitations, which is why it is known as Star Trek specifically, rather than as the generic scifi show on tonight. What we have there is not what the image above shows - and that's what we have for three centuries in a row!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[blssdwlf]

Funny enough, the original TOS FX had non-inertial movement, beyond visual range engagements and other interesting maneuvers because they re-used and combined background movement in various ways due to budget and fx limitations of the day. Even TWOK had some of this when Reliant attacks the Enterprise in it's first encounter (the Reliant is flying backwards and sideways.)

And since we're talking TOS phaser batteries, it's pretty clear from the dialogue and FX that even with all phaser batteries simultaneously combined it can be reduced down to two beams.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I'm not sure what the point of "disagreeing" here would be. Trek is quite consistent about not using multiple beams

Star Trek has been consistent about ALOT of things that make no sense. I am less enamored with its creative missteps than I am with the logical possibilities (whether explored or not) that they present.

What we have there is not what the image above shows

The hell it isn't!

Besides, that image is from STO, which is a STAR TREK product in any case. The best you can say is that the old VFX conventions could give a certain impression if you clung to them as gospel truth... but that's a big like arguing that gogo boots and short skirts are an example of a functional and highly efficient uniform style.

 

[Albertese]

... but that's a big [sic] like arguing that gogo boots and short skirts are an example of a functional and highly efficient uniform style.

--He says as if they aren't!



--Alex

 

[Timo]

I am less enamored with its creative missteps than I am with the logical possibilities (whether explored or not) that they present.

So you disagree with Star Trek. Fine - it is gospel truth on the subject by default, and few people agree with gospel truth on anything much. But there are generic scifi and science forums at TrekBBS, too, so I still can't see why you should bother with this one.

The hell it isn't!

That's a prime example of a starship never pointing more than two beams at a target - that's a multi-target engagement if Starfleet ever saw one.

Interestingly enough, neither Robau nor Kirk ever appeared to try and shoot at Nero's ship... Would that have been too naughty?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I am less enamored with its creative missteps than I am with the logical possibilities (whether explored or not) that they present.

So you disagree with Star Trek.

I disagree with your decision to take special effects shots completely literally in all cases. There's not actually a good reason to DO that.

More importantly, those conventions have changed and continue to change as more interesting effects become possible in film and TV productions. They've already broken from tradition in gaming, to everyone's collective delight, and the reboot movies have effectively nailed the coffin shut anyway.

That's a prime example of a starship never pointing more than two beams at a target

Kelvin has twelve secondary weapons (believed to be "photon launchers" going by script) that fire CONTINUOUSLY in massive salvos; meanwhile, all eight of its phaser banks are also continuously engaged, attacking both the Narada itself and later the torpedoes to cover the crew's escape.

Later in the same film, we see USS Enterprise firing ALL of its forward phasers at the Narada in a massed, concentrated salvo.

But yeah, tell me more about how the ship only fired two beams at a target.

Interestingly enough, neither Robau nor Kirk ever appeared to try and shoot at Nero's ship... Would that have been too naughty?

Except for the fact that Kirk appears to spend four minutes doing EXACTLY that, you almost have a point.

... but that's a big [sic] like arguing that gogo boots and short skirts are an example of a functional and highly efficient uniform style.

--He says as if they aren't!



--Alex

They do serve a function. Just not, you know, for the women.

 

[Timo]

I disagree with your decision to take special effects shots completely literally in all cases. There's not actually a good reason to DO that.

I'd love to disregard some of the VFX. But it goes deeper than that: the dialogue/foley tries to remain consistent with the limitations of the VFX, so we can actually count the shots even blindfolded. It really is a matter of disregarding "Star Trek", with its rather holistic limitations that provide its individual character.

And that's the fun thing: Trek really was at one point the only example of a "ship-to-ship" space combat show, and its "tactics" and "technologies" thus were pretty unique even though simply the product of generic budgetary, set-technological and schedule limitations. Ships fighting like Trek ones now have "Trek character", and non-Trek ships doing that look derivative.

Kelvin has twelve secondary weapons (believed to be "photon launchers" going by script) that fire CONTINUOUSLY in massive salvos; meanwhile, all eight of its phaser banks are also continuously engaged, attacking both the Narada itself and later the torpedoes to cover the crew's escape.

Later in the same film, we see USS Enterprise firing ALL of its forward phasers at the Narada in a massed, concentrated salvo.

Oh, trust me, I've masturbated over these scenes just as much as you have. The Kelvin never demonstrably fires at the Narada, only at her missiles. And funnily enough, even the "mercy shots" against Nero at the climax come in pulses of which there never are more than two!

But this is all a bit beside the point, as the vast Narada is a "multiple target" all by herself, presenting a bigger profile than a Borg Cube. Jim Kirk isn't trying to concentrate fire from multiple emitters against a weak spot, he's firing at a number of separate targets, some getting phaser blasts from the upper emitters, some from the lower, some receiving torpedo hits (see e.g. files 178-181 at TrekCore).

Except for the fact that Kirk appears to spend four minutes doing EXACTLY that, you almost have a point.

There are no other targets available at that point any more. So the question remains, why not choose this target in the actual combat, rather than saving them for the final demolition job?

And why George Sr. did it is clear enough - he didn't have time for anything else, what with saving the shuttles. Sulu, ditto - he was saving Spock. Why Robau didn't fire back at the ship in the first exchange of fire, or use all of his guns, can probably be chalked up to sheer shock.

So that leaves Pike, who was prepared to make a fight of it, but never got that far. Perhaps he would have been the first commander with the sense to burst Nero's bubble with the big pins available to him? And then Jim Kirk, who really didn't need to fire at Nero because his sidekick already saved the movie for him.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I disagree with your decision to take special effects shots completely literally in all cases. There's not actually a good reason to DO that.

I'd love to disregard some of the VFX. But it goes deeper than that: the dialogue/foley tries to remain consistent with the limitations of the VFX

No it doesn't. In fact what actually happens in production is the EXACT OPPOSITE of that: VFX tries (and partially succeeds) to be consistent with dialog, and more importantly, with the screenplay itself. Dialog can be written that calls for a specific -- say, the Enterprise is swallowed by a giant starship that's been chasing it, or the Enterprise is surrounded by a dense asteroid thicket -- but it has NEVER been the case for dialog to be written purely to account for a special effects shot that can't be done or that the artist chooses to do a particular way.

After fifty years of television and films and literally thousands of hours of filmed dialog, we have yet to hear a SINGLE line of dialog describing the color of a phaser beam.

The Kelvin never demonstrably fires at the Narada

So the small point detonations going off along the Narada's hull were... what? Ayel making popcorn?

But this is all a bit beside the point, as the vast Narada is a "multiple target"...

I think we're done here.

 

[Timo]

it has NEVER been the case for dialog to be written purely to account for a special effects shot that can't be done or that the artist chooses to do a particular way.

Except that in practice, dialogue describing special effects is consistent with the VFX - exactly because there exists a specific Trek tradition for doing the VFX which translates to these bits of dialogue.

Dialogue accommodates the existence of the transporter VFX/SFX, rather than vice versa. And it doesn't matter that the transporter only exists in order to accommodate certain plot requirements stemming from budget requirements: the dominoes don't stop there. Now that the transporter exists, and behaves in a certain way, the dialogue yields to it. Similarly, when phaser beams fire once per exterior shot (instead of a more "rational" fifty-and-counting), heroes comment on them having fired once, and the background noises support this firing rate.

So the small point detonations going off along the Narada's hull were... what? Ayel making popcorn?

Which scene would have those? The missiles and their components keep popping all the time, against the background of the vast and distant ship. When the Kelvin during the ramming run finally gets close enough for her wildly off-boresight shots to have a chance of connecting with parts of the Narada, her weapons are already down.

I think we're done here.

Fine with me. But demonstrating concentration of multiple phasers from one ship on one target you haven't, padawan. (Not yet).

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Which scene would have those? The missiles and their components keep popping all the time...

And further off in the background, we see small detonations against Narada's projected hull, mostly consistent with weapons fire hitting the ship at a distance. The torpedo detonations appear much closer, particularly in the first phase of the shootout (before and immediately after George orders the evacuation) since Kelvin doesn't appear to be targetting the torpedoes at all and is focussing most of its firepower on the Narada.

I think we're done here.

Fine with me. But demonstrating concentration of multiple phasers from one ship on one target...

We directly see discharges from not less than four phaser emitters in this scene, and we can track the trajectories from three of them.

Even by YOUR math, three is more than one (although "Narada" counts as "multiple targets" by that same math, so I can't say for sure).