posted
Can any one fill me in on the TNG mention of the introduction of phasers? Did it refer to hand-held units, ship-board units, or what? Also other than in Enterprise, has there been any other pre-TOS mention of phasers of beam weapons?
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I do remember Worf mentioning that phasers were introduced something like a hundred years previous. I think I read that in the Enterprise inconsistancies article at Ex Astris Scientia.
-------------------- "Kosh, I'd like to introduce you to our Resident schmuck and his side kick Kick Me."-Ritten
"Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity". -George Carlin
Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
posted
He said there were no phasers in the 22nd century and according to memory alpha the earliest know use of them was in 2257 (the dikironium cloud creature incident.)
Aside from that there's the fact that in WNMHGB they had a phaser rifle but still only laser pistols tell me that the technology took a while to scale down, starting off as an exclusively ship mounted or ground based weapon before being scaled down to a rifle (probably with an intermediate step on the scale of an industrial drill) before finally getting to the hand held unit.
Daniel Butler
I'm a Singapore where is my boat
Member # 1689
posted
The intermediate step was probably similar to the laser cannon from The Cage. Also, Masao, I know Enterprise's weapons are pretty much phasers visually, dramatically, for plot purposes, etc., but they don't actually call them phasers on the show; they call them "phase pistols" which is juuuuust different enough that we can at least take Worf as being correct and say 23rd century at the earliest.
Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
Or you could say that the phase cannons were a failed intermediary step between lasers and phasers despite their constant use on Enterprise so that Starfleet decided to keep using lasers into the 23rd century until someone could design a more efficient phase-energy weapon.
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
I'd think that Starfleet initially mounted their ships with lasers, as they were a readily available tech in the early days of human space exploration, then developed plasma cannons, around the turn of the 22nd century, followed by phase cannons, which for some reason were found inefficient after the Romulan war, and by the founding of the Federation, more powerfull lasers had been created so they switched back to laser technology, leading to the phaser in Kirk's time.
However, phase cannons could be strictly Earth based technology, and perhaps when the Federation was founded the other members did not want their ships to be armed with them. Another race could have had a more advanced weapon technology, based on the laser, that was chosen to arm new federation Starfleet ships.
-------------------- "Kosh, I'd like to introduce you to our Resident schmuck and his side kick Kick Me."-Ritten
"Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity". -George Carlin
Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
posted
I checked the Memory Alpha article and the Encylopedia because starting this thread, but neither are clear about whehter Worf was referring to shipboard weapons or hand weapons. So, Rev, you believe he was referring to all phasers?
Can anyone put his line in context?
Enterprise and Enterprise? What is Enterprise.
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
All he said was "No phasers."
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
In what context was that statement? We he discussing ship's weapons with someone?
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Rasmussen is in Ten-Forward, having accosted Worf, Riker, & Crusher at a tabel. From the script:
RIKER (after a long beat) How come there's no record of other future historians traveling back to witness "important events?"
RASMUSSEN We're obviously very careful. Matter of fact, a colleague and I recently paid a call on a twenty-second century vessel.
BEVERLY (fascinated) They hadn't even perfected quarantine fields by then. You must have seen surgical masks and gloves.
RASMUSSEN Isn't it fascinating how everyone has different interests when it comes to history... different perspectives on progress.
Rasmussen opens a small finger ring, looks inside, smiles, and closes it.
RIKER Mind if I ask what that is?
STAR TREK: "A Matter of Time" - 9/20/91 - ACT TWO 18.
17 CONTINUED: (3)
RASMUSSEN Just checking the time... No problem.
RIKER (getting a bit frustrated) Is something supposed to be happening here?
Rasmussen waves his hand, dismissing the question.
RASMUSSEN No, no, nothing. (changing the subject) What about you, Commander? What do you see as the most important example of progress over the last two hundred years?
RIKER (pauses) I suppose the warp coil. Before we had warp drive, Humans were confined to a single sector of the galaxy.
RASMUSSEN Spoken like the consummate explorer.
Rasmussen looks around the room, as if he were waiting for something to happen.
RIKER What's going on? You waiting for someone?
WORF (abruptly) Phasers!
Riker and Rasmussen turn to Worf.
RIKER Where?!
RASMUSSEN Beg your pardon?
WORF There were no phasers in the 22nd century.
Riker sighs and sits back.
STAR TREK: "A Matter of Time" - REV. 9/26/91 - ACT TWO 19.
17 CONTINUED: (4)
RASMUSSEN Ah, you see Doctor? Our Klingon friend is a perfect example of what I was trying to tell you. He views history through the eyes of a hunter, a warrior. His passion lies in the perfection of the tools of violence. How delightfully primitive.
Off Worf's reaction we:
CUT TO:
18 INT. ENGINEERING (OPTICAL)
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I don't spend a lot of time worrying about it, really. In the two pilots they were demonstrably making things up as they went along. You end up trying to tie together three facts that were created with no relevance to each other: the idea of "laser pistols" and a "phaser rifle" in 1965, the notion of "no phasers in the century preceding that the pilots are set in" in 1992, and the invention of a "phase pistol" in the aforementioned century in 2001.
The laser pistols are "set" using a rotating barrel with three sub-barrels, which is a pretty bizarre way of doing anything, whether it's a laser-beam or a phaser-beam (let's table the name they have for now, the name by which they were called needn't have been an exact description of their operation). Perhaps the "laser pistol" is in fact generating a phase beam which is being further "tuned" by crystals (or something) in each sub-barrel, which made people think of light and hence they were called lasers.
And another thing: Worf as expert historian? I know a lot about history (though obviously not as much as DT, odious unmissed little toerag that he is!) and I'd be hard-pressed to name the century firearms were first introduced. That whole scene reads as though Worf is trying to make a contribution to the discussion, and fluffs it.
Daniel Butler
I'm a Singapore where is my boat
Member # 1689
posted
Depends what you mean by "firearm." The Chinese had them long before anybody invited them in the West. And are you talking about cannons or hand held weapons? Hey, we're repeating the phaser discussion...
Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
(incidentally, I note that Robin Williams just appeared in, of all things, a Law'n'Order SVU episode. Why is this significant? Because he was their original choice to play Berlingoff Rassmussen, is a Trekkie, wanted to do it, but ultimately was "too busy." Of course, in those days the real reason was that no self-respecting film-star would ever do TV, not even if they'd got their original big break from it. Things are different now, TV is where it's at for the big roles, but all the same it makes me chuckle to see how far ol' Mork has fallen!)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
