# Star Trek: Why not just beam bombs against an enemy's shields? Ever explained? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [November 8, 2005, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034 "2005-11-08T14:18:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![chrisk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@chrisk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chrisk)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/21 "2005-11-08T19:00:46Z")
Since there are such things as transport inhibitors and scattering fields, I would think it’s possible that most starship shields include them. Thus, if you try to beam a supply of antimatter near that romulan warship’s shields… it wouldn’t materialize there. In fact, there’s a greater chance that it’ll accidentally materialize inside your transporter circuits!! :eek: 😃 😉 ---
**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:** [November 8, 2005, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/22 "2005-11-08T19:09:30Z")
Wizard did it. Anyway, it’s safe to assume that the transporter was used expermentally for a variety of attacks in its early days, and other species that also have transporter tech developed various defenses and countermeasures. ---
**Author:** ![GargoyleWB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gargoylewb/32/199_2.png) [@GargoyleWB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GargoyleWB)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/23 "2005-11-08T19:21:25Z")
If I recall, the pen 'n paper Starfleet Battles game allowed just this sort of tactic., as well as beaming over border parties, or laying mines out in space. The catch was that you had to drop your shields to do beam, which left you open to free attacks. So the only time it was really worthwhile was when your enemy was already defenseless anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Kamino\_Neko](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kamino_neko/32/34_2.png) [@Kamino\_Neko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kamino_Neko)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/24 "2005-11-08T19:22:52Z")
There would be no benifit. You wouldn’t gain accuracy - photon torpedoes and phasers can be aimed as accurately as a transporter beam - actually, more it seems, as they can rather consistantly hit targets moving at Warp or high Impulse without matching speed (I have never seen any ship in a Star Trek firefight _miss_), which they couldn’t do with transporters - you wouldn’t gain power (it would just be a different delivery method for the same payload), and the energy expenditure and effort on the part of the crew would be rather higher. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/25 "2005-11-08T19:31:39Z")
It’s got to be easier to aim & shoot, than to calculate the exact spatial coordinates of where an enemy ship is going to be, while moving at high speeds during a fire fight. I still think the technique is either banned, or like **Bryan Ekers** , it’s so obvious that every civilization with shield & transporter technology immediately develops countermeasures. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/26 "2005-11-08T19:38:16Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > Not sure why it would take any skill. A computer, either the one in the fired-off beaming mechanism or in the Enterprise, could calculate where the enemy ship will be in a second, and the beaming mechanism sends the charge in front of that position so the enemy runs over it, damaging the shields. Know what would be really cool? If they could take that predictive computer technology and use it to aim the weapons better. Hey, best of both worlds! In fact, they did that. It’s when that technology went offline that Chekov had to shoot by sight, and sometimes very poorly. See Wrath of Khan. As far as torpedos that act as guided missiles, they had that too. Sort of. Uhura thought it up, and McCoy helped develop it. See The Undiscovered Country. To answer the OP, I’m going with range and speed. Why shoot a running soldier with a bullet when a surgeon can just botch an operation on him, right? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/27 "2005-11-08T20:24:22Z")
In fact, Scotty did actually beam bombs onto an enemy’s shields, during his run on the Kobyashi Maru scenario. He didn’t win, of course, but he made the computer go to much more absurd lengths before it beat him. As for transporter attacks in general, you don’t (or shouldn’t) care what shape your antimatter is in when it hits the other ship. But you can do even better than that. For instance, suppose you beam away chunks of your opponent’s hull? Again, you don’t care what shape or composition it ends up in, just so long as it’s not in the shape of an attached piece of starship. But even that is thinking too small. A transporter beaming something up does three things: First, it converts a remote object to energy. Then, it transfers the energy and associated information onto the ship, and then reconstructs it back into matter. Suppose you beam up a chunk of your enemy’s hull, but just skip steps two and three? ---
**Author:** ![Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/28 "2005-11-08T20:40:15Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > In fact, they did that. It’s when that technology went offline that Chekov had to shoot by sight, and sometimes very poorly. See Wrath of Khan. Chekov was still recovering from the ear biter bug sand brain globby thingy, wasn’t he? I thought Sulu fired those shots. ---
**Author:** ![flight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbce88/32.png) [@flight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flight)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/29 "2005-11-08T20:46:56Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > However. Can the exact “border” of a shield be detected? I’m honestly not sure. And beaming things while one’s own shields are up is tricky. And beaming things tends to be slow. You can download a lot more ordnance through traditional means - plus you get the added oomph of the impact energy from the (sometimes very fast) speed of the torpedo. This brings to mind a similar question I have had. Why not warp torpedoes? Simple kinetic energy weapons. You can make a shuttle with warp, so if you remove all the requirements for humans you won’t be too much bigger than a torpedo. Should shred through shields. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/30 "2005-11-08T20:57:40Z")
> [@Fish](#): > > Chekov was still recovering from the ear biter bug sand brain globby thingy, wasn’t he? I thought Sulu fired those shots. When he got back on the bridge, he sat down and pulled out his little photon torpedo joystick and started playing with it. Geez, that didn’t sound right. But I think it was Sulu who was playing the B flat tenor phasers. ---
**Author:** ![LiveOnAPlane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3d9bf3/32.png) [@LiveOnAPlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LiveOnAPlane)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/31 "2005-11-08T23:17:39Z")
> [@flight](#): > > This brings to mind a similar question I have had. Why not warp torpedoes? Simple kinetic energy weapons. You can make a shuttle with warp, so if you remove all the requirements for humans you won’t be too much bigger than a torpedo. Should shred through shields. Don’t think it would shred 'em, but going by the fact that I’ve never seen a ship in warp have to detour around anything, I think it would just “bypass” the whole thing, somehow. Which leads to, yeah, if you could bring the thing out of warp inside the shields, but in front of the target ship, it oughtta work real fine. Except that trying to hit something in a – what? – few kilometer bubbe while traveling FTL does not leave much room for error. I don’t think this kind of precision would be possible to them. I can’t believe I’m getting into this… Anyway, what do you all think about a"micro-warp" drive; something preset to send a projectile into warp for a microsecond, then back into normal space. Should bypass the shields, then hit the target at relativistic velocities. I can certainly imagine why tis was never explored in the series, as it would render shields useless, and there goes another plot device. ---
**Author:** ![HPL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3da27b/32.png) [@HPL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HPL)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/32 "2005-11-08T23:44:39Z")
> [@flight](#): > > This brings to mind a similar question I have had. Why not warp torpedoes? Simple kinetic energy weapons. You can make a shuttle with warp, so if you remove all the requirements for humans you won’t be too much bigger than a torpedo. Should shred through shields. I read somewhere that torpedos are already capable of going at warp speed or faster. At least, they can be fired at warp. I don’t know why they never bother using it for this purpose. I’m still trying to figure out what’s the point of beaming bombs onto the shields when you already have torpedos. Exactly what is the benefit? Now, if you could beam through the shields, yeah, I’d say go for it, but beaming just seems like you’re reinventing the wheel here. ---
**Author:** ![Push\_You\_Down](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/push_you_down/32/9095_2.png) [@Push\_You\_Down](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Push_You_Down)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/33 "2005-11-09T00:25:47Z")
Yeah I’m not seeing the purpose of beaming bombs against shields. Revtim seems to be arguing from a place that torpedos are essentially buckshot and are as likely to miss as to hit…when we know that isn’t the case. ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/34 "2005-11-09T00:38:10Z")
> [@HPL](#): > > I read somewhere that torpedos are already capable of going at warp speed or faster. At least, they can be fired at warp. I don’t know why they never bother using it for this purpose. > > I’m still trying to figure out what’s the point of beaming bombs onto the shields when you already have torpedos. Exactly what is the benefit? > > Now, if you could beam through the shields, yeah, I’d say go for it, but beaming just seems like you’re reinventing the wheel here. They don’t use transporter tricks to deliver warheads in space battles most likely because of the KISS principle. Why go through all that trouble to deliver one warhead accurately when you can just fire a spread of 10 torpedos at once and guarentee multiple hits with less fuss? (Yesterday’s Enterprise). Also, we’ve seen a weapon very similar to what you speak of. In one of the7th season DS9 eps, they have a guy running around with a sniper rifle that uses a transporter in the barrel to beam the bullet through solid objects so it materializes in whatever room your target is in. Aiming is done with a special scope that, for some reason, can’t be used while the gun is loaded. (The gun evidently uses plotonium rounds). ISTR that posessing weapons of this sort (or even the replicator patterns to produce one) without jumping through some mighty kinky loopholes is a good way to get you in trouble in the Federation. Also, you can fire a torpedo at warp speeds and it will maintain itself in warp (requires some special device for this, otherwise it’d drop out of warp as soon as it left your warp bubble… and that would hurt, trust me). Why they don’t regularly approach at warp 9 and fire off a volley of torpedos at an enemy probably has to do with the concern of where the torpedo goes if it DOESN’T hit your target. In the Honor Harrington series of novels, they have a similar problem with launching missiles at relativistic speeds, for fear that you might accidentally execute a “Heinlen Maneuver”, that is, smacking the everloving shit out of a planet with a thermonuclear device traveling at .5c. (quite illegal in the Honor Harrington books) ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/35 "2005-11-09T01:09:12Z")
I have wondered why some evil person has never simply sent a warp engine at Warp 9 into a target by remote control, say a ship or planet… Or even a suicide bomber or kamakaze with a warp engine and a mini-bridge plunked on top slamming into something. ---
**Author:** ![Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/36 "2005-11-09T01:25:18Z")
> [@HPL](#): > > Now, if you could beam through the shields, yeah, I’d say go for it, but beaming just seems like you’re reinventing the wheel here. If you could beam _through_ shields you’d just beam pieces of your enemy’s ship onto _your_ ship, starting with _their_ transporter, then their shields, then your enemy’s anti-matter containment equipment… ---
**Author:** ![chrisk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@chrisk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chrisk)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/37 "2005-11-09T03:33:24Z")
> [@flight](#): > > This brings to mind a similar question I have had. Why not warp torpedoes? Simple kinetic energy weapons. You can make a shuttle with warp, so if you remove all the requirements for humans you won’t be too much bigger than a torpedo. Should shred through shields. Well let’s see. According to the cochran warp equations, (which the vulcans etcetra developed first, but that’s the official human name for them so anyway,) any object using warp drive to travel faster than light actually has a NEGATIVE kinetic energy value. 😃 What this means in practice is that if a warp projectile hits an object in relativistic space, the warp projectile is pretty much totalled and the relativistic target is essentially undamaged. 😉 Now, for using something like that as a weapon against other ships in warp flight… I suppose it might be possible. I don’t have a full mathematical treamtment here, so I’m not sure what would happen. If you have a projectile travelling at higher warp factors impacting on a ship travelling at a lower warp factor, it might have the same results as described above. Or there might be some impact on the warp ship. What you’d get sounds like using a warp-enabled probe to simulate a photon torpedo without any antimatter payload… why bother, really, when photon torpedos are a relatively proven technology? [sub](Portions of the above were pulled out of my ass… negative kinetic energy and its effects. But it sounds more plausible than a lot of star trek technobabble. 🙂 )[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![HPL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3da27b/32.png) [@HPL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HPL)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/38 "2005-11-09T03:34:09Z")
> [@Fish](#): > > If you could beam _through_ shields you’d just beam pieces of your enemy’s ship onto _your_ ship, starting with _their_ transporter, then their shields, then your enemy’s anti-matter containment equipment… Or do what Voyager did to the borg and transport a bomb inside. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Long\_Road](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b5a626/32.png) [@The\_Long\_Road](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Long_Road)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/39 "2005-11-09T04:43:54Z")
I never really got the Borg thing because of this reason. When the Enterprise crew kept entering the Borg cube, why not simply plant a Hydrogen bomb on the ship and be done with it? Instead, let’s use our hand weapons to shoot a few things in the Borg cube to make them mad and slow down to deal with the Enterprise. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Long\_Road](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b5a626/32.png) [@The\_Long\_Road](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Long_Road)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/40 "2005-11-09T04:45:59Z")
> [@HPL](#): > > Or do what Voyager did to the borg and transport a bomb inside. Oops! Since I stopped watching Voyager after the Amelia Earhart episode, I missed that they had done this. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034.md?page=3)