technical quibble

[Deckerd]

I really don't think you can apply any logic to people getting thrown around in a bit of combat turbulence when they can go from a few thousand kph to warp speed, and more importantly back out again, without so much as a tremor.

[Metryq]

Deckerd wrote:

---

I really don't think you can apply any logic to people getting thrown around in a bit of combat turbulence when they can go from a few thousand kph to warp speed, and more importantly back out again, without so much as a tremor.

Maybe the advanced space weapons are not delivering a concussive shock, but some kind of EMP-like wave that ripples through the artificial gravity/inertial damping field... which still would not explain the lack of seat belts and helmets.

[scotpens]

C.E. Evans wrote:

---

. . . An alternative might be to do away with traditional consoles & seating and have all stations be "mini-cockpits" instead that personnel can climb into and employ the more secure multi-point harness system used in aircraft.

You mean something like this?

[CorporalCaptain]

The "common wisdom" is that, without inertial dampeners, the crew would be literally pasted.

If that's so, then, since the crew is only getting tossed around during combat, and/or having to climb up to their consoles, the inertial dampeners are—relatively speaking—only very slightly out of adjustment at those times.

Perhaps that's due to fluctuations in the ship's main power systems, like the ones that are blowing up the consoles all the time. Perhaps also there's a slight time lag in dampener reaction during combat, because the application of force on the ship by enemy weapons isn't precisely predicted and accounted for in advance, unlike the programmed acceleration of the ship when executing maneuvers under helm control under normal circumstances.

[C.E. Evans]

scotpens wrote:

---

You mean something like this?

Essentially, yeah, but perhaps a bit more enclosed.

[Brolan]

You have to keep in mind the large bridges, hallways, etc. makes it easy for the cameras so they can do closeups, etc. Otherwise they would be fine with smaller sets.

[scotpens]

Brolan wrote:

---

You have to keep in mind the large bridges, hallways, etc. makes it easy for the cameras so they can do closeups, etc. Otherwise they would be fine with smaller sets.

REALITY?? In a discussion of Trek tech?

[jayrath]

To combine several of the posts above, the inertial dampeners work quite well. If they didn't, the crew would be a one-molecule layer of past on the rear bulkhead any time the ship accelerated, even in sublight.

When they dampeners do (very slightly) fail, the crew does get knocked around a tiny bit. So what? Have we ever seen anyone go to sickbay because of it? No. In fact, it all seems to work much better than a car hitting a wall at 35 mph. Sure, you're strapped in, but your organs will continue on the same vector, making mush inside your chest.

Now, seatbelts are an absolute necessity in automobiles, and I'm not arguing that anyone take them off. But I think we may forgive Starfleet's inertial dampeners for protecting our crews from unimaginable G-forces, while still occasionally dumping them from chairs.