# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![Pushkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ee59a6/32.png) [@Pushkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pushkin)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/41 "2005-11-09T12:43:28Z")
> [@Fish](#): > > Chekov was still recovering from the ear biter bug sand brain globby thingy, wasn’t he? I thought Sulu fired those shots. Chekov was at a weapons console seen before in The Motion Picture for targetting and firing torpedoes. There’s a little pop out switch for firing the torps, sort of gave the impression that they’re a big deal to fire. IIRC before that (in TWOK), when the bridge is cleared and Spock, Sulu is at the Helm and fires phasers. Again, later, when the ships are in the Mutara Nebula, its implied that Sulu has phaser control, Kirk mentions something to him about giving it his best shot and he replies he will. The brain biter thingie was the larva of a Ceti Eel. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/42 "2005-11-09T14:27:33Z")
With regard to warp-speed bombs - I did that in a Star Trek roleplaying game, actually. Not relevant to the discussion, but it was pretty cool. We basically kept one shuttlecraft geared up at all times to be a remote-controllable antimatter-filled container capable of warp or high impulse speed. Came in handy. That wasn’t my coolest invention as the ship’s engineer, though - I designed a self-assembling Dyson Sphere and a universal power converter that were both more interesting. ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/43 "2005-11-09T16:07:46Z")
> [@Raguleader](#): > > 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). This was just on TV yesterday. The bullet was Tritanium. Don’t know what you mean about the scope. They used it both when the gun was loaded and unloaded. > [@](#): > > 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. Actually, the rifle was just your basic sort of projectile weapon. It was a prototype developed for situations where energy-dampening fields, etc., rendered standard phasers useless. (They had to reinvent a rifle!) But it was never put into duty/production; the Feds opted for, IIRC, “regenerative phasers” instead. The micro-transporter was a custom add-on, not part of the original design. I think the trouble that people got into w/ the rifle was purely based on the fact that people were being murdered by it, so anyone showing any interest was suspect. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/44 "2005-11-09T17:17:02Z")
I don’t mean to hijack this thread, but enough’s been said about beaming torpedoes. I always wondered why they needed to go to the transporter room at all. I mean, you can lock onto someone from anywhere and beam them anywhere, so what’s the purpose of physically going to the transporter room? Why not just beam directly from the bridge to the planet? ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/45 "2005-11-09T17:27:11Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > I don’t mean to hijack this thread, but enough’s been said about beaming torpedoes. > > I always wondered why they needed to go to the transporter room at all. I mean, you can lock onto someone from anywhere and beam them anywhere, so what’s the purpose of physically going to the transporter room? Why not just beam directly from the bridge to the planet? That’s called a “site-to-site transport.” Not sure why not done more often, but here’s one suggestion: > [@](#): > > It might be that standing on the transporter platform adds some safety or is simply more efficient. > **[Transporter platform](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Transporter_platform)** > > The transporter platform or transporter pad was a raised area in the transporter room; it was located within the transporter chamber. The platform had transporter pads, where the individual or object that was being transported had to be placed in... ---
**Author:** ![Cerowyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/82dd89/32.png) [@Cerowyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cerowyn)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/46 "2005-11-09T17:38:05Z")
> [@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. > > We can make those position calculations now, I have no doubt. It’s just seeing where the enemy is, and extrapolating where he’ll be next at the current trajectory. Star Trek computers are often far less capable than current technology. They can’t, for instance, let you know when another ship is sneaking up on you, or raise shields in anticipation of an attack that the shipboard sensors can nonetheless forewarn about. And battles in Star Trek take place at incredibly short range, the fist-fight equivalent of standing chest-to-chest and battering at each other. Besides, if you can just figure out the right frequency that the enemy shields flicker at, you can slide your photon torpedo right through them like a hot knife through butter. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/47 "2005-11-09T18:15:01Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > But I think it was Sulu who was playing the B flat tenor phasers. Phasers, like Wagner’s “E-Flat” anvils in _Das Rheingold_ have no pitch. Or German spell checker, for that matter. ---
**Author:** ![Nonsuch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nonsuch/32/2922_2.png) [@Nonsuch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nonsuch)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/48 "2005-11-09T18:17:28Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > I always wondered why they needed to go to the transporter room at all. I mean, you can lock onto someone from anywhere and beam them anywhere, so what’s the purpose of physically going to the transporter room? Why not just beam directly from the bridge to the planet? Because it gives the opportunity for characters to have conversations walking to and from the transporter room. The Next Generation Enterprise was going to have a transporter room right off the main bridge, until Roddenberry killed it for the aforementioned reason. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/49 "2005-11-09T18:20:05Z")
> [@Pushkin](#): > > The brain biter thingie was the larva of a Ceti Eel. Nah, it was an [ant lion](http://www.ivyhall.district96.k12.il.us/4th/kkhp/1insects/antlion.html). We dug them up at school when I was a kid. It’s a wonder there are any left in the 23rd century. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/50 "2005-11-09T18:30:34Z")
> [@toadspittle](#): > > That’s called a “site-to-site transport.” Not sure why not done more often, but here’s one suggestion: > > [Transporter platform | Memory Alpha | Fandom](http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Transporter_platform) In TOS, they avoided site-to-site transport because the level of transporter/computer/sensor technology made it dangerous; the one time Kirk tried it–in “Day of the Dove,” I think–Scott commented that it could very easily wind up with the captain materializing inside a bulkhead, and the fact that Kirk survived the experience was as attributable to luck as to anything else. It was definitely a last-resort kind of thing. In TNG onward, they avoid site-to-site transport because it’s wasteful of resources; it requires more than twice the computer memory, energy, and so forth to accomplish, and probably takes longer. Hence their not using it to evacuate the entire ship in emergencies. I don’t think any part of the ship is more than fifteen seconds away by turbo-lift from a personnel or cargo transporter, and in all but the worst crunches, it’s better for the transportee to go to the pad. For similar reasons, when transporting ship-to-ship, they prefer to do the transport from one pad to another rather than the alternative. Not that I’ve read the Technical Guide, of course. That’s strictly for geeks. :wally think they avoid site-to-site transports because it’s wasteful of resources; it requires twice as much energy and computer time to accomplish ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/51 "2005-11-09T18:35:31Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > Was there ever an explanation why they didn’t just use the beaming technology to beam a photon missile against an enemy ship’s shields, instead of shooting it when it might miss? Or perhaps beam a blob of pure antimatter against the shield? I don’t think beaming a blob of pure antimatter would do anything but waste resources. Antimatter alone isn’t volatile; it needs matter to react with. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/52 "2005-11-09T18:48:43Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > I don’t mean to hijack this thread, but enough’s been said about beaming torpedoes. > > I always wondered why they needed to go to the transporter room at all. I mean, you can lock onto someone from anywhere and beam them anywhere, so what’s the purpose of physically going to the transporter room? Why not just beam directly from the bridge to the planet? It kinda makes sense though, for each ship to have a sort of “front door” through which people officially come & go even though in emergencies they don’t really need to. For instance, I think it’s nice when ambassadors come on board, there’s an official place for VIPs to make their appearance, do all the meets & greets, etc. Why not make that place the transporter room? Plus, for general security purposes, you might not want the transporter room right off the bridge, since many people coming & going from a starship don’t necessarily have any business being near the bridge. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/53 "2005-11-09T19:11:07Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > It kinda makes sense though, for each ship to have a sort of “front door” through which people officially come & go In TOS “intraship beaming” or point to point within the ship without a transporter pad was dangerous. Must be easier to “hit” a transporter pad. It probably has something to do with the “pattern inhancers” used in STNG. (Which were of course merely a plot device for… ) :smack: Ow! ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/54 "2005-11-09T19:18:20Z")
> [@Fabulous Creature](#): > > I don’t think beaming a blob of pure antimatter would do anything but waste resources. Antimatter alone isn’t volatile; it needs matter to react with. I assume it will react with the shield it is being beamed against. The Star Trek shields are energy, I assume, and I’m pretty sure antimatter reacts with energy like it does with matter. Corrections welcome of course. ---
**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, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/55 "2005-11-09T19:18:21Z")
> [@Pushkin](#): > > Chekov was … > > IIRC before that (in TWOK), when the bridge is cleared and Spock, Sulu is at the Helm and … > > The brain biter thingie was … A ear biter bug sand brain globby thingy! Don’t make me admit I know the movie by heart, I’m trying _not_ to geek out here! :eek: ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/56 "2005-11-09T19:30:20Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > I assume it will react with the shield it is being beamed against. The Star Trek shields are energy, I assume, and I’m pretty sure antimatter reacts with energy like it does with matter. Corrections welcome of course. Nope. Antimatter reacts with energy the same way that matter reacts with energy. No major effect here (except for some possible explosions from the antimatter annihilating any interstellar dust/gas/particles in space at the edge of the shield). ---
**Author:** ![rippingtons\_fan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rippingtons_fan/32/11767_2.png) [@rippingtons\_fan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rippingtons_fan)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/57 "2005-11-09T22:35:44Z")
Just “Reverse the Polarity”!!! It seems to work in all the other movies! ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/58 "2005-11-10T01:20:08Z")
> [@rippingtons\_fan](#): > > Just “Reverse the Polarity”!!! It seems to work in all the other movies! Didn’t work too well the last time Charles Tucker tried it. _Dammit_ ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/59 "2005-11-10T02:47:59Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > And I thought they didn’t fight at warp generally. Unless they’re fighting an Imperial Star Destroyer. \ ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034/60 "2005-11-10T02:53:57Z")
> [@tracer](#): > > Unless they’re fighting an Imperial Star Destroyer. I wonder if that thread is still around. Maybe the mods vaporized it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-why-not-just-beam-bombs-against-an-enemys-shields-ever-explained/330034.md?page=4)