4

In an answer to this question (Why aren't phaser rifles used more often?), one author quote from Major Kira:

It's Federation standard issue. A little less powerful, but with more options; sixteen beam settings, fully autonomous recharge, multiple target acquisition, gyrostablized, the works.

If it has multiple target-acquisition, then theoretically you should never miss. I can see hand-phasers missing (unless they also have target acquisition) but why would a phaser-rifle miss? Bad targetting computers? Or are the phaser beams really slow and you can literally dodge them?

Community
  • 1
RoboKaren
  • 3,969
  • 1
  • 27
  • 42
  • They miss less in DS9 – Valorum Jul 13 '14 at 22:56
  • There is no technology that is perfect. Just because it uses a automatic locking technology does not mean circumstances cannot make it impossible to miss. Darkness, smoke, distance, electronic countermeasures can all make such technology less accurate. – Thaddeus Howze Jul 13 '14 at 23:01
  • I'd assume it's the same as the inbuilt computers found in weapons in Mass Effect. Ignoring the information on calculation for shaving off metal and for deploying Mass Effect Fields, the Codex says that while the Computer makes it very hard to miss it can still happen due to ever changing variables after the round (or in this case, beam) has been fired, multiple target acquisition would be more complex for calculation since you don't just factor all the variables for 1 target, you factor for multiple targets – Memor-X Jul 14 '14 at 00:18
  • What exactly do you think they're locking on to? Still have to aim... – Izkata Jul 14 '14 at 01:03
  • 4
    I would assume that it would automatically target anyone (not) wearing a red shirt. – RoboKaren Jul 14 '14 at 01:23
  • 1
    A phaserbeam travels at the speed of light You can not dodge them. – Einer Jul 14 '14 at 08:09
  • 1
    @Einer but you can! If you're fast enough. Here. – Mr Lister Jul 14 '14 at 13:02
  • @MrLister Those guys were unusual quick. Assume you go 11m/s (human max-speed) while beeing shot from a distance of 10m. In the time the beam travels, you can go about 0.03mm. So only if the guy shooting is almost missing you by 0.03mm and you move named 0.03mm you can actually "dodge". Of course you'd first had to accelerate to 11m/s within split seconds - but granted, yeah: You can dodge. [Being an alien must be so much easier sigh] – Einer Jul 14 '14 at 13:23
  • I can dodge a beam of light. Just saying... – BBlake Jul 14 '14 at 16:09
  • 3
    The real, unanswerable, question is why Starfleet is so bad at designing weapons. Kirk-style phasers could take down a crowd with a wide-dispersal phaser beam. Just wave your phaser in the enemy's general direction, hold down the trigger and wait until they all hit the floor. TNG phasers apparently can't do this anymore. They missed obvious derivative weapons, too. Stun grenades? Nope. Aliens-style sentry guns? Nope. They started to get creative on DS9 during the Dominion War but until then it's as if they memory-wiped everyone who could design a weapon nastier than a toothpick. – Kyle Jones Jul 14 '14 at 19:54
  • 2
    If the "multiple target acquisition" works about as well as the auto-focus on most cameras, the issue isn't accuracy, it's time: by the time the target acquisition has locked on to anything, it's too late (The Niece[ahem, sorry]the enemy is half a football field away), so most people just aim roughly and fire, hoping for the best. – Martha Jul 14 '14 at 21:31
  • 3
    Starfleet with competent weapon designers would be terrifying. A boarding party on your starship shouldn't stand a chance, you control the environment entirely. Down to /gravity/. That actual humans have to walk over there and shoot at you is a clear sign that nobody in starfleet knows how to make a decent weapon. – Phoshi Jul 15 '14 at 14:06
  • @KyleJones They weren't bad at designing them, just at using them. To my recollection, the wide dispersal beam was used once in the TNG era, on Voyager, and no less by Tuvok against his own crew! If I recall, he wasn't himself at the time... – Andy Dec 21 '22 at 17:38

1 Answers1

3

  1. No technology can completely remove human error from the equation. There are cameras today that have image stabilization and multiple focus points that will track a moving object across the frame. Neither of these innovations has eliminated badly framed photographs, even when wielded by an experienced and determined photographer. You still have to point the camera and trip the shutter at the right time.

  2. Soldiers aren't always trying to shoot accurately. Sometimes they are laying down suppressive fire to keep the enemy from fulfilling some objective, be that advancing, retreating or being able keep his head up long enough to shoot accurately. So in Star Trek episodes where you see combatants missing their apparent targets, consider that they might just be trying to pin the enemy down.

Kyle Jones
  • 53,799
  • 14
  • 174
  • 259
  • 2
    Two thoughts: 1) I'd assume my camera in the 24th century would have excellent face detection, be able to focus in a nanosecond, and have essentially no shutter lag. 2) I don't think that suppression fire is the answer. Even when troops are advancing directly towards the Feds, they still miss. – RoboKaren Jul 15 '14 at 23:14
  • @RoboKaren I expect, that we won't be making photos in 24th century at all (assuming, that humanas manage to survive that long; don't forget, that ST is an utopia!). When evaluating future technology development level, I always look back and take similar period of time. Photography exists for 150 years, so I don't expect it, in similar form as we know today, for longer than next 150-200 years (so 23rd century). Who knows? Maybe we'll be writing photographs directly to our memory or accessing our brains like photo album? :> – trejder Jan 16 '15 at 10:35
  • @trejder Well they did have holorecorders in some of the later episodes... – Andy Dec 21 '22 at 17:40