# Canon/Fanon reason why weapons miss in Star Trek **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [March 16, 2014, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canon-fanon-reason-why-weapons-miss-in-star-trek/683809 "2014-03-16T01:40:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![nevadaexile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/eb8c5e/32.png) [@nevadaexile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nevadaexile)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canon-fanon-reason-why-weapons-miss-in-star-trek/683809/41 "2014-03-16T14:45:16Z")
> [@terentii](#): > > Why, then, were photon torpedoes warp-capable and the much larger shuttlecraft not? :dubious: The needs of the narrative outweigh the needs of logic. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canon-fanon-reason-why-weapons-miss-in-star-trek/683809/42 "2014-03-16T14:45:38Z")
> [@terentii](#): > > Why, then, were photon torpedoes warp-capable and the much larger shuttlecraft not? :dubious: [Shuttlecraft](http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Shuttlecraft) are short range transports and some are wap-capable. ---
**Author:** ![terentii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terentii/32/212_2.png) [@terentii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/terentii)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canon-fanon-reason-why-weapons-miss-in-star-trek/683809/43 "2014-03-16T14:58:12Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > [Shuttlecraft](http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Shuttlecraft) are short range transports and some are wap-capable. Not in _ **TOS** _ they weren’t. It was established in “The Menagerie” that they were driven by ion propulsion. In Blish’s _ **Spock Must Die!** _, Doppelganger Spock surprises everyone by modifying a shuttlecraft to have warp capability, which was apparently a great technical feat in Kirk’s time. Warp-driven shuttlecraft were first seen in _ **TNG** _, set some 80 years later. We can argue about how “canon” Blish’s novel was, but in general he stuck pretty close to the ST Writer’s Guide. (I’d have to look in my copy of _ **The Making of Star Trek** _ to be sure, but I believe it’s specified there that shuttlecraft can only travel at sublight speeds.) In “Metamorphosis” the _Galileo II_ was supposed to rendezvous with the _Enterprise_ in deep space, far from any planetary system. IRL, it would have taken them forever to get there. (Or perhaps they had traveled as far as they already had aboard another starship? If so, it was never mentioned.) **ADDITION:** The presence of what appear to be warp nacelles really means nothing. In “The Galileo Seven,” the shuttlecraft was powered by energy drained from hand phasers and was shown leaving an exhaust trail, fer chrissakes! :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Ranchoth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranchoth/32/1066_2.png) [@Ranchoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranchoth)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canon-fanon-reason-why-weapons-miss-in-star-trek/683809/44 "2014-03-16T15:11:11Z")
> [@terentii](#): > > Not in _ **TOS** _ they weren’t. It was established in “The Menagerie” that they were driven by ion propulsion. In Blish’s _ **Spock Must Die!** _, Doppelganger Spock surprises everyone by modifying a shuttlecraft to have warp capability, which was apparently a great technical feat in Kirk’s time. Warp-driven shuttlecraft were first seen in _ **TNG** _, set some 80 years later. [Memory Alpha (the ST Wiki) notes](http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Class_F_shuttlecraft): > [@](#): > > The full specification for the Class-F was not heard in “The Menagerie” **as the computer was stopped.** It is likely that the craft had a limited warp capacity as attempting to follow the Enterprise, a faster than light vessel, would be absurdly futile with a slower than light ship. It also had limited range, as Kirk exceeded his point of safe return in “The Menagerie, Part I.” Bolding mine, as I don’t have the episode on hand t’check. Fanon/fanwanking aside, though, the capabilities (or lack thereof) of the shuttlecraft can probably be explained perfectly by the fact that [1960s TV Sci-fi writers have no sense of scale.](https://allthetropes.orain.org/wiki/Sci-Fi_Writers_Have_No_Sense_of_Scale) 😃 ---
**Author:** ![terentii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terentii/32/212_2.png) [@terentii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/terentii)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canon-fanon-reason-why-weapons-miss-in-star-trek/683809/45 "2014-03-16T15:20:24Z")
[quote=“Ranchoth, post:44, topic:683809”] > [@](#): > > The full specification for the Class-F was not heard in “The Menagerie” as the computer was stopped. It is likely that the craft had a limited warp capacity as attempting to follow the Enterprise, a faster than light vessel, would be absurdly futile with a slower than light ship. It also had limited range, as Kirk exceeded his point of safe return in “The Menagerie, Part I.” Makes no difference. The whole point of Kirk and Mendez (even if he was only an illusion created by The Keeper) pursuing the _Enterprise_ was _to force Spock to reverse the ship and come and rescue them!_ They knew perfectly well that they had no hope of catching up to a starship, and that in trying they would soon run out of “fuel” and drift in space. There is nothing in the above to suggest that a Class F shuttlecraft had even limited warp capability; on the contrary, they were taking advantage of its _not_ being warp-capable! **ADDITION:** The limited capabilities of television writers are often too glaringly apparent! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Balance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ccd318/32.png) [@Balance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balance)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canon-fanon-reason-why-weapons-miss-in-star-trek/683809/46 "2014-03-16T15:27:56Z")
> [@terentii](#): > > Assuming that photo torpedoes _are_ warp-capable, the time in which they reached NOMAD was even shorter than that for the energy bolts reaching the _Enterprise_. This means they were traveling \*faster \*than warp 15. A Federation starship cruises at warp 6, and goes faster than warp 8 only in cases of, e.g., extreme emergency. We’re to assume then that photon torpedoes are vastly superior to starships in terms of warp capability??? :eek: > [@terentii](#): > > Why, then, were photon torpedoes warp-capable and the much larger shuttlecraft not? :dubious: As I mentioned in my post above, the torpedo drives operate in a state of overload. They have no safeties, regulators, shielding, or heat dissipation measures because they’re _supposed_ to blow up. Since they don’t carry cargo or crew, they don’t need empty space, life support, inertial dampeners, artificial gravity, and all that other stuff. They have a very short range (relatively speaking), so they don’t carry much fuel. All that means they can be very compact and go much faster than a ship. Recall _Journey to Babel_, in which the antagonists were deliberately overloading their drives in a similar fashion. Even lugging around all the stuff for the crew, they were still considerably faster than the Enterprise. ---
**Author:** ![terentii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terentii/32/212_2.png) [@terentii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/terentii)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canon-fanon-reason-why-weapons-miss-in-star-trek/683809/47 "2014-03-16T15:32:48Z")
> [@Balance](#): > > As I mentioned in my post above, the torpedo drives operate in a state of overload. They have no safeties, regulators, shielding, or heat dissipation measures because they’re _supposed_ to blow up. Since they don’t carry cargo or crew, they don’t need empty space, life support, inertial dampeners, artificial gravity, and all that other stuff. They have a very short range (relatively speaking), so they don’t carry much fuel. All that means they can be very compact and go much faster than a ship. > > Recall _Journey to Babel_, in which the antagonists were deliberately overloading their drives in a similar fashion. Even lugging around all the stuff for the crew, they were still considerably faster than the Enterprise. Because they were on a suicide mission, yes. That makes sense. However, the thought of torpedoes with no inertial dampening (life forms or no life forms aboard, they still must contain delicate components) and enough energy to travel at speeds exceeding warp 15 boggles the mind! :eek: ---
**Author:** ![nevadaexile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/eb8c5e/32.png) [@nevadaexile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nevadaexile)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canon-fanon-reason-why-weapons-miss-in-star-trek/683809/48 "2014-03-16T15:35:12Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > [Shuttlecraft](http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Shuttlecraft) are short range transports and some are wap-capable. Technically, ALL would have to be warp capable as any journey of significance would take months or years. It would be impossible for a shuttlecraft , given its limited size and thus storage capacity (not to mention its lack of a restroom) to be in space for more than a few days. The series attempted to “modify” this by introducing the larger Runabouts which are definitely warp-capable. However, even these would have to be relatively short-range craft due to their lack of storage capacity. ---
**Author:** ![terentii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terentii/32/212_2.png) [@terentii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/terentii)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canon-fanon-reason-why-weapons-miss-in-star-trek/683809/49 "2014-03-16T15:39:22Z")
> [@nevadaexile](#): > > Technically, ALL would have to be warp capable as any journey of significance would take months or years. It would be impossible for a shuttlecraft , given its limited size and thus storage capacity (not to mention its lack of a restroom) to be in space for more than a few days. > > The series attempted to “modify” this by introducing the larger Runabouts which are definitely warp-capable. However, even these would have to be relatively short-range craft due to their lack of storage capacity. Was not the first runabout to appear (or even be mentioned) Spock’s ship in _ **TMP** _? That was a Vulcan design (apparently not Starfleet standard) with a detachable warp sled. ---
**Author:** ![nevadaexile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/eb8c5e/32.png) [@nevadaexile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nevadaexile)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canon-fanon-reason-why-weapons-miss-in-star-trek/683809/50 "2014-03-16T15:43:52Z")
> [@terentii](#): > > Was not the first runabout to appear (or even be mentioned) Spock’s ship in _ **TMP** _? That was a Vulcan design (apparently not Starfleet standard) with a detachable warp sled. That’s possible. However, the Runabouts which I was referring to are the larger shuttles which first appeared in TNG and were the primary mode of transport on Deep Sleep Nine until the producers realized that to save the series they’d better get a spaceship. All of the vessels would have be warp capable as again any voyage besides one from an orbiting vessels down to a planet or moon, would take so long that w/o suspended animation it would mean the deaths of the crew. ---
**Author:** ![terentii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terentii/32/212_2.png) [@terentii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/terentii)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canon-fanon-reason-why-weapons-miss-in-star-trek/683809/51 "2014-03-16T15:45:35Z")
> [@nevadaexile](#): > > That’s possible. > > However, the Runabouts which I was referring to are the larger shuttles which first appeared in TNG and were the primary mode of transport on Deep Sleep Nine until the producers realized that to save the series they’d better get a spaceship. > > All of the vessels would have be warp capable as again any voyage besides one from an orbiting vessels down to a planet or moon, would take so long that w/o suspended animation it would mean the deaths of the crew. Yes, indeed, and a brilliant decision it was! 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Dale\_Sams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/779978/32.png) [@Dale\_Sams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dale_Sams)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canon-fanon-reason-why-weapons-miss-in-star-trek/683809/52 "2014-03-16T15:49:10Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > One thing I took away from the Culture series is that the deadliest weapon in any sufficiently-advanced culture’s arsenal is suborning the enemy - when starships are run by AIs (or near-AIs as seems to be the case in Trek) then you’d be _mad_ to ever allow direct ship-to-ship communication with any hostile or unknown vessel - the risk of having your systems taken over is too great - I mean, the Enterprise (all flavours) regularly gets taken over by alien species/energy beings/super-advanced godlike crewmembers, so you can’t tell me its anti-virus systems are _that_ great. So I’m surprised weapons directly targeting the enemy ship systems (memetic weapons, a la Banks) aren’t mentioned more often. I mean, that approach would render Great Balls of Hot Plasma (TM pending) pretty redundant. Something the B_attlestar Galactica_ reboot got right, I think. It took the Cylons some 50 years, and a \*\*\*\* load of infiltration to pull that off. Same with ID4…with less infiltration, we didn’t sleep with the aliens in that one. Though your post did make me think of a nit I hadn’t seen before. The command code shown in Wrath of Khan? It might as well be 1-2-3-4-5. ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canon-fanon-reason-why-weapons-miss-in-star-trek/683809/53 "2014-03-16T16:10:02Z")
> [@Dale\_Sams](#): > > It took the Cylons some 50 years, and a \*\*\*\* load of infiltration to pull that off. > > Same with ID4…with less infiltration, we didn’t sleep with the aliens in that one. > > Though your post did make me think of a nit I hadn’t seen before. The command code shown in Wrath of Khan? It might as well be 1-2-3-4-5. Well why would it need to be more complicated? They were all one big happy Starfleet!😃 ---
**Author:** ![magnusblitz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@magnusblitz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magnusblitz)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canon-fanon-reason-why-weapons-miss-in-star-trek/683809/54 "2014-03-17T01:31:55Z")
> [@nevadaexile](#): > > Not what it means? > Really? > > So if energy weapons work as they supposed to and hit and killed the protagonists in all episodes in which they were used, fans wouldn’t be opposed to that? Not a very well conceived response. Yes, really. [Fanon - TV Tropes](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Fanon) In the hypothetical you’ve conceived, there probably wouldn’t be fans in the first place, because such a show wouldn’t last very long. “Because then there wouldn’t be a story” is a definite reason, sure (and that’s what I read your initial use of the term “fanon” to be), but it’s not fanon because it’s not a in-universe reason. ---
**Author:** ![Ranchoth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranchoth/32/1066_2.png) [@Ranchoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranchoth)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canon-fanon-reason-why-weapons-miss-in-star-trek/683809/55 "2014-03-17T03:01:02Z")
Aha—For the record, I just found the [TOS writer’s guide](http://www.bu.edu/clarion/guides/Star_Trek_Writers_Guide.pdf) (version as of 1967), which only states that the shuttles are "a six or seven passenger ship which can be sent out on intra-solar system missions. " (Also, a note at the end of the document that states that the creative staff aren’t on LSD, but not from a lack of trying. Good to know, for the record.) ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canon-fanon-reason-why-weapons-miss-in-star-trek/683809/56 "2014-03-17T05:24:56Z")
> [@Dale\_Sams](#): > > Though your post did make me think of a nit I hadn’t seen before. The command code shown in Wrath of Khan? It might as well be 1-2-3-4-5. That’s the same code I have on my luggage! But yeah, you could assume the five-digit code was preceded by an ultra-encrypted Starfleet header, verifying that the transmission was indeed coming from a Starfleet vessel,only instead of the code for “data to follow”, it was “sudo”. Of course, why it was “sudo -shields” and not “sudo -shutdown” is another matter. ---
**Author:** ![DWMarch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dwmarch/32/1010_2.png) [@DWMarch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DWMarch)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canon-fanon-reason-why-weapons-miss-in-star-trek/683809/57 "2014-03-17T07:30:45Z")
My fanon explanation for why personal phasers don’t have an aim correction on them is that they actually do have it. However, Starfleet tactical officers think that only pussies use it and the first thing most of them do is shut it off. There have been episodes in which the phaser beam does not go in the direction the phaser is pointed and these would be officers who switched auto-aim back on. As for torpedoes, that’s a tougher one. Apparently if they miss they sail off into space never to be seen again. There has been one torpedo with a guidance package on it, the modified one in ST:VI that blew Chang’s ship up. And that torpedo still wandered all over hell and back before hitting the target! I would theorize that this is some future Geneva Convention issue- because the torpedoes are so powerful it is unethical (and hence illegal) to bolt a guidance package on. Point defense is the only thing Star Trek (2009) got right. Not only do the main phasers sweep for incoming projectiles, there’s also quite a few dedicated turrets that work like the point defense system on an aircraft carrier. Of course they get the hand phasers all wrong- why does an energy weapon which should only have one moving part (the trigger) need to be manually cocked? ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canon-fanon-reason-why-weapons-miss-in-star-trek/683809/58 "2014-03-17T07:45:39Z")
> [@DWMarch](#): > > Point defense is the only thing Star Trek (2009) got right. Not only do the main phasers sweep for incoming projectiles, there’s also quite a few dedicated turrets that work like the point defense system on an aircraft carrier. Of course they get the hand phasers all wrong- why does an energy weapon which should only have one moving part (the trigger) need to be manually cocked? I don’t recall them cocking their phasers, but they did seem to have a fiddly bit near the front that would flip one way or the other depending on if it was set to “Stun” or “Kill”. Still seemed unnecessary, though. ---
**Author:** ![nevadaexile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/eb8c5e/32.png) [@nevadaexile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nevadaexile)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 10:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canon-fanon-reason-why-weapons-miss-in-star-trek/683809/59 "2014-03-17T10:21:46Z")
> [@magnusblitz](#): > > Yes, really. [Fanon - TV Tropes](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Fanon) > > In the hypothetical you’ve conceived, there probably wouldn’t be fans in the first place, because such a show wouldn’t last very long. > > “Because then there wouldn’t be a story” is a definite reason, sure (and that’s what I read your initial use of the term “fanon” to be), but it’s not fanon because it’s not a in-universe reason. I’m a fan of Star Trek. That being said, I realize that it it is a childishly naive view of a future that will never be. Roddenberry demonstrated a profound ability to completely ignore human nature in favor of overarching themes which conflict with one another inside his own universe… Perhaps you see things differently and that would be your opinion of it. We’ll just have to disagree about your views and leave it at that. ---
**Author:** ![terentii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terentii/32/212_2.png) [@terentii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/terentii)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canon-fanon-reason-why-weapons-miss-in-star-trek/683809/60 "2014-03-17T10:59:29Z")
> [@Raguleader](#): > > I don’t recall them cocking their phasers, but they did seem to have a fiddly bit near the front that would flip one way or the other depending on if it was set to “Stun” or “Kill”. Still seemed unnecessary, though. There was a little setting dial on the tiny hand phaser that snapped into the pistol unit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canon-fanon-reason-why-weapons-miss-in-star-trek/683809.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canon-fanon-reason-why-weapons-miss-in-star-trek/683809.md?page=4)