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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
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).