User questions and answers at imagine image multimedia

View Edit QnA

Answer

Era

Category

Question

Updated

Even if you look at Star Trek of the last few films 2012+, the phasers are not in turrets per se, but emitters positioned around the ship.  Also, there are some that are a type of turret.  The truth is that turrets are a point of failure and need maintenance so having multi-degree emitters is more efficient.  Obviously, we have yet to see how these phaser batteries are crewed if at all.  In the Next Generation series and films, we see phaser batteries in the 25th century are FAR different in the Enterprise Excelsior class:  the phasers are emitted from anywhere entirely around the disc hull in a "strip" along the edge of the disc ONLY, and not at all from the lower decks "tube" hull.

There is also some contradictory or additional information regarding torpedoes.  In the film Into Darkness, we note that the advanced technology torpedoes are positioned like guns along the entire side of the ships hull.  This is nonsense of course but looks dramatic.  There is no reason why these advanced torpedoes would be any different than normal torpedoes, UNLESS, as we dont know, normal torpedoes do NOT have long range fuel; and here again is a controversy.. what IS the "fuel" and if it is advanced in these new torpedoes why would the fuel be exhaustible?  And, what does "long range" mean in the first place?

So you can see there is so much twisting of reality in order for dramatic effect that we cannot rely on these films and must use common sense:

Torpedoes would not be energy as we see in the "pew-pew" of the original Star Trek series, nor in Star Wars fired from Luke's X-Wing fighter; and btw, all fired FORWARD of facing.  More than likely, each torpedo would be an encased rocket/missile with fuel silently launched like a missile in space.  The torpedo is a missile.

However, if we are to believe that a torpedo can be "catapulted" therefore not having it's own fuel, that too would make more sense and these would be cheaper to make, because in space, once you throw something it is never going to slow down; it will stay at that velocity so there is no reason for fuel. Presumably this might mean you can put more explosive material in the missile because there is room, because there is no engine components.

However, advanced torpedoes we are left to believe, would be able to maneuver to their target, that is, follow the target as best as they can. Therefore, fuel WOULD be needed but this fuel can simply be compressed air or anything, as long as it can be emitted from the rocket to push it in different directions.

The statement "long range" in the film Into Darkness therefore makes no sense; all missiles fired in space will travel, hypothetically, for an eternity.

Sun Nov 25 2018 13:51:32 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time)

Media link

https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/4246/what-is-the-difference-between-a-phaser-and-a-disruptor