In many movies and TV series (Star Wars, Star Trek, etc.), we see space battles in which spaceships miss their targets. I can't understand how such advanced beings can simply "miss", but perhaps there's some justification for this.

Often these same spaceships can travel to just outside a planet belonging to another star traveling faster than the speed of light. They seem to have advanced aiming technology.

Question: When shooting laser cannons etc. from spaceships, why do advanced beings miss their targets?

  • 3
    Because if advanced beings are good at aiming, then also advanced beings must be good at avoiding. And in most movies I can recall they are still people targeting the guns, they are not automatic. – TK-421 Oct 4 '19 at 5:59
  • 2
    Because there is no action or drama when a computer calculates, via advanced space mathemagics, exact perfect trajectories to hit enemy ships, after a captain says ‘computer target, lock and fire’ while drinking a space mocha. – morbo Oct 4 '19 at 8:30
  • 1
    For the hard-scifi enthusiasts, you might check out the Space War Combat site. Almost as addictive as tvtropes. In reality, ships in these shows go so fast that a bag of kitty litter dropped out the window has so much "bang" that explosive compounds are superfluous. ( projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/… ) – Yorik Oct 8 '19 at 18:22

J Michael Straczinski pointed out (sorry I can't find the quote) that in most space battles (at least in Babylon 5), seeing the ships up close to each other like that is kind of a dramatisation to make it look good on screen, and that in reality, space ships would be so far away from each other that they wouldn't even be able to see each other.

This goes some way to explaining how they could miss, or how counter measures would be better able to make them miss.

In Star Trek: The Next Generation, the bridge crew sometimes give the distance of another ship from the Enterprise and it's usually a lot further than it appears on screen, sometimes in the hundreds or thousands of km IIRC.

  • 1
    Even going back to TOS, there has often been talk of the magnification setting of the main screen making things more clearly visible. Of course that “realism” is often destroyed by exterior shots that seem to show totally different sizes and distances. – Todd Wilcox Oct 4 '19 at 17:36
  • 1
    And once distances start getting large, travel speed of the laser is no longer 'instant'. If you aim at something 3 light seconds away, you are seeing where it was 3 seconds ago (light from the target reaching your eyes) and the laser takes an additional 3 seconds to reach the target (and this ignores reflex and decision time; i.e. time required to aim and decide to push the firing button). During all this time, the target may be moving, causing the laser to possibly miss. A laser not only has to hit, it must also stay on the moving target long enough to damage or burn through the target hull. – Mark Ripley Oct 5 '19 at 6:07

This would be a good question for physics.se
But you are using earth observed behaviour that you extrapolate on galaxy level. On earth you can use laser pointer to set level in a room and be sure that it works (so line from meter to point on the wall is really straight, shortest line).
On space level (or even on earth on thousand of km/miles lenghts) there is no such thing as real physical, easily to achieve straightest line that you could send plasma/laser/protons on.
You have gravity of stars, planets, gases, gravitional waves (that could be ignored in the case of old ST episodes). And you have time. Yes, on earth the light travels kilometres in less than blink of an eye. In cosmos that travel really takes minutes, hours or days.

In ST you can hear "Sir, they are preparing to shot their X". Which means that on Enterpise they just seen that preparation but in fact the protons could already be fired. With a set coordinates (so a places in X,Y,Z where Enterprise was at the moment of firing). So now they have time to change their position assuming that shooter didn't had enough knowledge about Star Fleet Ships ability to change it's position to calculate it in.

Using some earth comparision it would be like avoiding an arrow that have been shot from kilometre away. It's travel is influence by earth moving, winds, angle it have been shot. And it achieving it's target is also influenced by target moving (or not).


Perhaps their weapons have too large engineering tolerances reducing accuracy/increasing the weapon grouping size i.e. large Minute of Angle while shooting moving targets at long distance. Perhaps the perceived shooting distances are actually much larger than implied. Or somehow a combination of special relativity and varying relative displacement makes projectile speed/aiming very inconsistent (ie. blame the server lag).

Perhaps the defensive countermeasures in play being are bad match up e.g. Perhaps the normal tactics is capital ship on capital ship combat with a strong emphasis on depleting energy shields, where larger of volume fire is prioritised over accuracy due to the shield defensive bubble size.

However, if laser weapons were actually traveling at the speed of light, then plain old startrooper bad aim/poor training is probably to blame.


Well, I am by no means a Rocket Scientist or Military Strategist but from my perspective I see 3 primary "Types" of weapons that can practically be used in a space combat environment.

Kinetic weapons - Which is to say any non-maneuvering point to point sub speed of light weapon that deals damage either through pure kinetic energy or through some means of volatile payload. These types of weapons in the context of space combat are short range devices, only practical when the distance between the two ships is so close that the ship is unable to evade in the time span between when you see the object being fired and when it arrives. As a sub-light projectile it will be seen well before arrival assuming sufficient distance making getting out of the way a breeze.

Light-Based Weapons - Weapons of this type, unless there is a detectable firing delay, are impossible to evade once spotted as they will have already hit you! But that doesn't mean its a sure thing. Light-based weapons must be fired blind, as in you are firing at where you think the target will be when it hits. Simply flying unpredictably will give these types of weapons an astronomically low chance of hitting unless at close range, or if the target area is saturated in fire covering multiple predicted angles.

Intelligent Weapons - Weapons such as Missiles or anything that is able to maneuver or think on its own fall into this category. These weapons can be fired in anticipation of a fight and set to linger like a cruise missile, or in the expected path of an object, as well as accelerate much faster than a spacecraft. By being able to maneuver and possibly home in on an object the only defense to these objects is by ship based countermeasures.

What it boils down to is one key factor. Distance. Within distances where the speed of light does not factor in then it is a slug fest down to whoever is able to inflict critical damage first(whether that be offensively or defensively with shields/Armour). In situations where the speed of light would factor in then, which is almost every case of space conflict then the the winner will be determined by variables such as Unpredictability of maneuvering, Countermeasures for Active-Tracking weapons, volume of fire and Shipboard Sensor Packages (being able to detect and track enemy ships and weapons and act accordingly)

  • 1
    It's a nice full-bodied answer, but can you target (hah!) your information more at the question asked, i.e. why weapons often miss their goals? – Joachim Oct 8 '19 at 21:06

It is used for dramatic effect in movies and tv shows. Often this adds realism to the space combat the way our ape mind sees the space combat. To do the space combat any otherway would look rather boring to us and that is why it is done this way.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .