Unseen TOS....

[Warped9]

One thing I tried to resist was to apply what I would do today rather than extrapolate from what was done then. The original phaser rifle looked cool, but functionally it strikes me as not well thought out.

Secondly I’m assuming a phaser pistol or phaser rifle would not likely be as heavy as an actual gun or rifle as we know them. Gripping the rifle beneath the barrel to steady the weapon would be more of a psychological thing rather than an actual necessity.

There was also the idea of maintaining a visual familiarity with the already familiar Phaser II and the general TOS sense of aesthetic and design. Ergonomics have advanced greatly since the 1960s.

 

[aridas sofia]

OK, this is really quite promising, but I have a pretty big issue here with the design. This design implies that two hands are necessary to aim and fire the weapon, at least in many important engagement scenarios. For this reason, the placement of controls on top of the weapon, at least exclusively, seems like a bad idea. These controls need to be placed were the hands are going to be or were they could well have to be, or at least there need to be redundant switches there at those locations. See for example, thumb activated fire-selector switches. A soldier should be able to switch from stun to dematerialize etc without moving his or her hands from the grips. Similarly, every site function should be available with hands on grips.

it depends how you see the act of changing settings compared to the operation of an analogous weapon today. Is resetting from stun to kill more like loading a rifle or taking off safety? You can’t load a rifle while set to fire. But in most designs you can take it off safety.

The problem you cite could be dealt with as simply as by having a speech interface. One could see TOS security corpsmen interacting with their named guns much like an old time soldier calming his aim by speaking sweet nothings to his dear Bess.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

it depends how you see the act of changing settings compared to the operation of an analogous weapon today. Is resetting from stun to kill more like loading a rifle or taking off safety? You can’t load a rifle while set to fire. But in most designs you can take it off safety.

The direct analog to today's weapons is switching from semiautomatic to burst to fully automatic. So, the control is analogous to a fire selector switch; safe is one of the settings.

The problem you cite could be dealt with as simply as by having a speech interface. One could see TOS security corpsmen interacting with their named guns much like an old time soldier calming his aim by speaking sweet nothings to his dear Bess.

That's all kinds of problematic. Jamming and interference issues aside, not to mention the possibility, if not probability, of tremendous amounts of ambient noise in combat, a well placed and well designed switch will always be faster. Even a throat mic runs into problems, like, whether they are expected to be able to clearly vocalize while running over rough terrain, submerged, or in hand-to-hand combat. We're talking about a highly sophisticated system that's solving a problem that a simple switch could solve better. It's not smart.

 

[UssGlenn]

The triple trim detail on the stock ties it nicely in with the type II, but looks rather uncomfortable to actually hold against your shoulder, though I realize kickback would be minimal.

 

[Henoch]

It looks like the preferred method to hold and shoot the rifle is in the nook of the arm, against the bicep, then can transition up to the shoulder for aimed shots with the sights/aiming computer. I think it is a good design, as-is. As for changing settings and using the nobs, these are not meant to be easily changed, rather, they want the user to go through odd motions in order to give time and purpose before they decide to vaporize things and people. Disintegration is a big decision not to be taken lightly.

 

[blssdwlf]

If those metal fins are supposed to be heat sinks perhaps they shouldn't be on the stock as it would be burning your shoulder?

I'm okay with the setting controls on the top as that is where they are on the Phaser 2 an 1 so it stays consistent. Still looks like a Mossberg shotgun with a fold up stock folded over the top Wouldn't want to be on the business end of it.

 

[Warped9]

Note: if you’re targeting something long range with instrumentation then it really isn’t necessary to hold the rifle up as if sighting by eye. You can simply look down at the display angled toward you. For more conventional targeting by eye you can use the sight on top the rifle.

In many other instances the rifle can be wielded rather like a machine gun.

As for the fins on the stock I simply emulated that detail from the Phaser II.

 

[trynda1701]

As for the fins on the stock I simply emulated that detail from the Phaser II.

Which was your intent. Remember, folks, @Warped9 is trying to show something that could have been shown on TV, but wasn't, trying NOT to be influenced by later sources.

Plus, the Tech Manual, which came later, doesn't have the fins as a heat sink, it says deflector shield!

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Disintegration is a big decision not to be taken lightly.

I agree, but it should be easy to take it off that setting. You shouldn't have to compromise your stance to show mercy on your opponent.

 

[Warped9]

…the Tech Manual, which came later, doesn't have the fins as a heat sink, it says deflector shield!

Wow. I forgot about that. The implication that phaser can provide you with a personal deflector screen?

 

[trynda1701]

Wow. I forgot about that. The implication that phaser can provide you with a personal deflector screen?

Didn't help all those red shirts!

Protection from heat on highest settings? Other technobabble explanations can be suggested!

Actually, just wanted to check what the TM said, I just wasn't sure it was a heat sink.

 

[Warped9]

Remember, folks, Warped9 is trying to show something that could have been shown on TV, but wasn't, trying NOT to be influenced by later sources.

Yeah, this is key. With these efforts I am trying to put myself back in the mid 1960s using only influences that were available and known then and trying ignore anything brought out afterward.

See this thread’s opening posts for clarification.

 

[aridas sofia]

I think this is your best effort yet, at least insofar as capturing the Jefferies zeitgeist is concerned. Don’t worry about the technical issues - there has to be room for the technology to be so advanced it looks to us either problematic or impossible.

 

[Warped9]

I have a vague sense of how this could work. The silver knob on the side above and forward of the trigger could be the mode selector: off (safety), heat, stun, disintegrate and deflector (why not?). The black and silver knob on top of the stock could be level or intensity for each mode. The squarish silver display with three switches is the long range targeting system for targets beyond normal visual range. The silver button below and behind the power unit is the power module’s release (for swapping out).

 

[tesral]

Wow. I forgot about that. The implication that phaser can provide you with a personal deflector screen?

From the phaser itself. You are way too close to a very high energy beam.

 

[Warped9]

Here we are.

 

[publiusr]

Wow. I forgot about that. The implication that phaser can provide you with a personal deflector screen?

Yours can. I can see the two rods up top being that and the lower grip being the battery...clip like.

 

[aridas sofia]

The only thing I think distinguishes this from something that would have been embraced by Jefferies and Roddenberry is GR would have wanted those power coils to glow or pulsate or at least react in some way when firing.

 

[Warped9]

The laser pistols as well as the Phaser I and Phaser 2 and even the original phaser rifle had no apparent lighting fx other than a beam being fired added to them in post production. If the original phaser rifle has any parts that lit up they weren’t apparent or were never used.

In like manner the nacelle domes of the fullsize shuttlecraft exterior mockup were supposed to light up, but they never were shown that way.

 

[Spaceship Jo]

The laser pistols as well as the Phaser I and Phaser 2 and even the original phaser rifle had no apparent lighting fx other than a beam being fired added to them in post production. If the original phaser rifle has any parts that lit up they weren’t apparent or were never used.

In like manner the nacelle domes of the fullsize shuttlecraft exterior mockup were supposed to light up, but they never were shown that way.

Oh for sure, and yet... all those things you listed at least give the impression of being lit, or least catch light differently than the areas around them. I'd make those cylinders translucent or at least a color that doesn't match the body so well, even if it's just reflective, which would certainly help it meet that Unseen TOS vibe goal.

Great work as always!