/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11930388

7KiB, 320x235, images (18).jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Deflector Shield

Anonymous Thu 23 Jul 14:54:40 2020 No.11930388 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11930393 >>11930920 >>11931040 >>11931062 >>11931873

Is there any science behind Star Trek's deflector shield?

I feel that without them, big battlships and mega structures in space would be rendered useless

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Jul 2020 14:55:51 No.11930393 Report

Quoted By: >>11930492 >>11930987

>>11930388
no
you're wrong about everything

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Jul 2020 15:42:36 No.11930492 Report

Quoted By: >>11930502

>>11930393

But I didn't claim anything you cum slurping piece of shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Jul 2020 15:46:55 No.11930502 Report

Quoted By: >>11930605

>>11930492
I can tell from the content of your post that everything you're thinking is wrong

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Jul 2020 16:33:52 No.11930605 Report

Quoted By:

>>11930502

>The OP post is a question

Neck yourself retard.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1339938122661.jpg, 272KiB, 964x867

Anonymous Thu 23 Jul 2020 17:57:09 No.11930920 Report

Quoted By:

>>11930388
There is unfortunately little to no actual physics behind this concept.
>magnetic field
even absurdly strong ones do little to non-metallic matter, even though everything is diamagnetic (opposing applied magnetic fields) to a certain degree. Would need insane amounts of energy to deflect high momentum objects and probably tear apart any structure within the field (your ship/station)
>anti-gravity field
Would need even more energy we assume. Think about the mass needed to generate planetary gravity. Without some unfound exotic mechanism generating gravity without mass you can dismiss the idea entirely
>electric field
will only act on charged particles but is your best bet to avert ion storms or something alike
>some other electroweak/weak/strong nuclear force field
would only work close range and no clue how you would even generate that without unthinkable particle mechanisms

Your best bet for a ship is turrets shooting smaller debris and thicc© walls on your mega structures.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Jul 2020 18:20:33 No.11930987 Report

Quoted By:

>>11930393
haha that preemptive shut down

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Jul 2020 18:36:26 No.11931040 Report

Quoted By:

>>11930388
Best way to realistically implement something like a deflector shield for combat would be with sacrificial plates, nanites or drones directed by electromagnets or their own rocket engines. The plates would move in the way of incoming fire, be destroyed and replaced by more. Debris management and replenishment are left as an exercise for the student.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Jul 2020 18:48:49 No.11931062 Report

Quoted By:

>>11930388
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7qLp88n6s5k
will explain what you need to know about it

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Jul 2020 22:46:26 No.11931873 Report

Quoted By:

>>11930388
Absolutely not. Phasers make sense because they're just particle weapons. But shields in Star Trek are just technobabble.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches