Can Starfleet ships easily travel in planetary oceans

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Voyager seems capable of going under water with some refits, but that isn't a primary mission parameter.

The Delta Flyer seems to be designed for that mission profile in mind.

 

[dupersuper]

Voyager VI survived the trip through a black hole, and that's made mostly of tin foil. Also the Narada and Jellyfish in ST'09, and maybe Voyager? I can't remember.

I tend to dismiss those as wormholes or other anomalies as they behave nothing like a black hole. I mean, Parallax thought an event horizon was physical thing you could essentially shoot through.

 

[Spaceship Jo]

How has no one in this thread posted the Futurama answer? It is thus my duty, I suppose:

Fry: How many atmospheres can this ship withstand?
Farnsworth: Well it's a spaceship, so I'd say anywhere between zero and one.

That said, I've heard lots of moaning in previous conversations here and elsewhere about how SPACEships couldn't handle ocean pressures, but the thing is we aren't talking current reality here, we are talking space-fantasy with some flare of science-fiction, which means that they can for sure handle the stresses of pressures internal or external that we can barely comprehend.

Same goes for the "the TOS nacelle pylons look weak" line of thought. That was the point! Our current understanding of physics and technology wouldn't allow any version of the Enterprise to fly through space in any sensical way - and that's not to mention at WARP SPEED! Their technology is (believably scientific with a handwave) magic. Incredibly advanced! So they can go on treks through the stars at episodic speed!

So to answer the original poster: can Starfleet ships easily travel in planetary oceans? Yes. As easily as dedicated Starfleet aqua-ships or whatever they call them as a category (they aren't all shuttles, presumably)? No, of course not.

As for warp, you can't go far warping in an ocean because you soon won't be in an ocean. I see no reason it COULDN'T be done, and lots of reasons why it WOULDN'T be done, barring extraordinary circumstances (or as one might put it, reasons it wouldn't be done normally, but reasons it would be featured in an episode and highlighted as atypical). After all, sometimes warping in a solar system is no good, sometimes you can warp from within an atmosphere, so...

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

As for warp, you can't go far warping in an ocean because you soon won't be in an ocean. I see no reason it COULDN'T be done, and lots of reasons why it WOULDN'T be done, barring extraordinary circumstances (or as one might put it, reasons it wouldn't be done normally, but reasons it would be featured in an episode and highlighted as atypical). After all, sometimes warping in a solar system is no good, sometimes you can warp from within an atmosphere, so...

The reason you don't use Warp Drive within a Planet's Atmosphere, Ocean, or near the ground is because the Warp Bubble will steal the local Air, Water, Earth and drag it with the StarShip.

The area that you stop in, you'll be depositing the Air, Water, Earth into that region of space.

If everybody did this, you'd end up bit-by-bit stealing a planets mass.

Once or twice doesn't matter, but over the long term, lossing millions of tons of mass affects a Planet's orbit.

That's the primary reason that I can see as to not using Warp Drive or any other FTL drive within a Planet's Atmosphere to escape the planet. It's mostly a ecological reason to benefit the local planet you're venturing on.

Warping within a Solar System is fine as long as you know where the orbit of all planets are and make sure to not hit anything while you're going FTL. We've seen countless StarShips do it in Star Trek. It's really not a big deal.

Just don't Warp within the Atmosphere of a planet, you don't want to steal their Matter, be it: (Air, Water, or Earth).

 

[Spaceship Jo]

The reason you don't use Warp Drive within a Planet's Atmosphere, Ocean, or near the ground is because the Warp Bubble will steal the local Air, Water, Earth and drag it with the StarShip.

If everybody did this, you'd end up bit-by-bit stealing a planets mass.

Once or twice doesn't matter, but over the long term, losing millions of tons of mass affects a Planet's orbit.

Warping within a Solar System is fine as long as you know where the orbit of all planets are and make sure to not hit anything while you're going FTL. We've seen countless StarShips do it in Star Trek. It's really not a big deal.

It is of course not a big deal to warp in a solar system... except for when it is.

I was about to look up the specifics, luckily EAS has already done this:

"Although it is definitely possible, there seem to be very different opinions whether it is advised to go to warp inside a solar system. In "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" Kirk speaks of the risk of engaging the warp drive while still in the Sol system. Dax advises against going to warp inside the Bajoran system in DS9: "By Inferno's Light". In ENT: "Demons" T'Pol is worried ("Inside the system?") when Paxton orders the mining facility to go to warp. In TNG: "The Best of Both Worlds" we even see the Borg ship as well as the Enterprise-D slow down to impulse, although several seconds longer at warp speed may have saved precious time."

But yes, normally it's fine. Almost all the time.

As for the stealing mass, I agree, that is the big part of the problem, and also the energy issue associated with creating a vacuum where a moment ago there was ship and water or whatnot, and the resulting high energy event as matter responds and fills that space. Not so bad in atmosphere, but in water, that could kill members of various species, sapient or not.

 

[trekkist]

>Although it is definitely possible, there seem to be very different opinions whether it is advised to go to warp inside a solar system.

Funny. I seem to recall Kirk's ordering a warp departure from orbit in many an episode.

As for the thread's subject, an episode of my (unmade) fan film series had Yamato (NCC-1305...TNG's first registry citation is canon, all others be damned) shot down by a jet aircraft armed with a nuclear missile and falling into an ocean, relatively undamaged...but for reasons of plot, having to operate for some time submerged. Pressure was no problem, thrusters provided for maneuverability--but the enormous mass of the nacelles caused the ship to roll upside down (the starship's own gee fields compensating before anyone "hit the deck" [ceiling]).

 

[Tim Walker]

Somebody pointed out that the U.S.S. Curry seemingly has a trimaran design. Another analogy-a flying boat.

So....a starship designed to land on the surface of an ocean? A craft that would be a ship of the sea as well as a ship of outer space?

 

[DSG2k]

Even the NX-01 went through funky liquefied gases within a gas giant within her first week. Mere atmospheric flight and even underwater maneuvers should be cake, even though it seems completely weird to our brains conceptually. Indeed, presuming the systems are designed for vacuum, it seems there would have to be some designed-in conversion to such environments, otherwise the low-pressure outgassing flap on the hull becomes a huge risk of system backflushing, whatever that system might be.

The only real issues would be things like propulsion and heat, not to mention any sensors or such not optimized for that environment.

 

[Pauln6]

I think the limiting factor is just the amount of thrust it takes to defy gravity. Traditionally, the ships use hydrogen thrusters in atmosphere, which would be doable underwater but require a MASSIVE amount of thrust to 'take off' again afterwards. Impulse engines could be used instead but the ship would be belting out a ton of super-heated plasma and, if I'm honest, I'm not entirely sure how ships steer using impulse power? There has never been any suggestion that pressor/graviton beams are used instead of thrusters but whatever they used to overcome gravity, there would be a serious and devastating energy wake. Starships - or rather HEAVY cruisers - are generally not designed to spend time in low atmosphere - look at the number of times the Enterprise was caught in a dangerous decaying orbit - irrelevant if they just needed a landing trajectory. Smaller, lighter ships like Voyager or shuttles could fulfil that function

I think the writers of NuTrek were concerned with cool visuals rather than Trek science so they just did stuff that they thought looked groovy.

 

[blssdwlf]

I think the limiting factor is just the amount of thrust it takes to defy gravity. Traditionally, the ships use hydrogen thrusters in atmosphere, which would be doable underwater but require a MASSIVE amount of thrust to 'take off' again afterwards. Impulse engines could be used instead but the ship would be belting out a ton of super-heated plasma and, if I'm honest, I'm not entirely sure how ships steer using impulse power? There has never been any suggestion that pressor/graviton beams are used instead of thrusters but whatever they used to overcome gravity, there would be a serious and devastating energy wake. Starships - or rather HEAVY cruisers - are generally not designed to spend time in low atmosphere - look at the number of times the Enterprise was caught in a dangerous decaying orbit - irrelevant if they just needed a landing trajectory. Smaller, lighter ships like Voyager or shuttles could fulfil that function

I think the writers of NuTrek were concerned with cool visuals rather than Trek science so they just did stuff that they thought looked groovy.

I don't think thrust was a problem as we've seen thrusters on a Klingon Bird of Prey used to land and take-off in "The Search for Spock" and "The Voyage Home" and it left no scorch marks. The thrusters did blow alot of people around though on the ground. Once transitioned to impulse power there was no disruption of air currents or appreciable noise or anything in flight or when surprising the whalers.

As for the examples of Enterprise in a dangerous decaying orbit - it was dangerous and decaying because they were deprived of power and not in control of her flight so there would be no way to control their landing trajectory either...
"Mudd's Women", "Return of the Archons", "Court-Martial" and "The Naked Time" all had the Enterprise suffering from no power to the engines. "Tomorrow is Yesterday" and "Court-Martial" we see the Enterprise able to recover with some power to her engines to climb back into orbit.

If the TOS Enterprise can swim around an Earth-sized space ameoba then it should be expected for the NuTrek Enterprise to be able to swim around a planet's ocean...

IMHO..

 

[Pauln6]

I don't think thrust was a problem as we've seen thrusters on a Klingon Bird of Prey used to land and take-off in "The Search for Spock" and "The Voyage Home" and it left no scorch marks. The thrusters did blow alot of people around though on the ground. Once transitioned to impulse power there was no disruption of air currents or appreciable noise or anything in flight or when surprising the whalers.

As for the examples of Enterprise in a dangerous decaying orbit - it was dangerous and decaying because they were deprived of power and not in control of her flight so there would be no way to control their landing trajectory either...
"Mudd's Women", "Return of the Archons", "Court-Martial" and "The Naked Time" all had the Enterprise suffering from no power to the engines. "Tomorrow is Yesterday" and "Court-Martial" we see the Enterprise able to recover with some power to her engines to climb back into orbit.

If the TOS Enterprise can swim around an Earth-sized space ameoba then it should be expected for the NuTrek Enterprise to be able to swim around a planet's ocean...

IMHO..

The bird of prey is barely bigger than a shuttle and is designed to land. Now try to land an aircraft carrier and see how you get on. ;-P

 

[Nerys Myk]

It's gonna do what the plot demands. Fictional ship will do just fine underwater.

 

[blssdwlf]

The bird of prey is barely bigger than a shuttle and is designed to land. Now try to land an aircraft carrier and see how you get on. ;-P

That same Bird of Prey still crashed at the end of "Voyage Home" when she lost power. The problem isn't size or design or thrust but interference with power generation, IMHO.

 

[Pauln6]

That same Bird of Prey still crashed at the end of "Voyage Home" when she lost power. The problem isn't size or design or thrust but interference with power generation, IMHO.

Many Mars probes have crashed because there wasn't enough atmosphere or reverse thrust to slow their descent to land safely. If you scale that up to something as heavy as a Starship, they are going to have to produce a very destructive level of reverse thrust to land, depending on atmospheric pressure. Similarly large levels of thrust would be needed to leave, depending on the gravity of the planet, where atmospheric drag works against you.

The mass of a starship doesn't change, regardless of atmosphere or gravity. It's why the Enterprise performing a hairpin turn in Earth's atmosphere so close to a populated area looks so silly. Quite apart from the fact that there is no logical reason for hydrogen thrusters to be dependent on warp power, a lot of physics was just hand-waved away for a last minute heroic save.

So moving through liquid should pose no issues for a ship but there might be ethical dilemmas if you are going to frag the local wildlife when you arrive and leave. Still, if a volcano is going to kill everything anyway, you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs (unless you remember that you have more than one shuttle and your transporters can now reach light years away).

 

[blssdwlf]

Many Mars probes have crashed because there wasn't enough atmosphere or reverse thrust to slow their descent to land safely. If you scale that up to something as heavy as a Starship, they are going to have to produce a very destructive level of reverse thrust to land, depending on atmospheric pressure. Similarly large levels of thrust would be needed to leave, depending on the gravity of the planet, where atmospheric drag works against you.

The mass of a starship doesn't change, regardless of atmosphere or gravity. It's why the Enterprise performing a hairpin turn in Earth's atmosphere so close to a populated area looks so silly. Quite apart from the fact that there is no logical reason for hydrogen thrusters to be dependent on warp power, a lot of physics was just hand-waved away for a last minute heroic save.

So moving through liquid should pose no issues for a ship but there might be ethical dilemmas if you are going to frag the local wildlife when you arrive and leave. Still, if a volcano is going to kill everything anyway, you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs (unless you remember that you have more than one shuttle and your transporters can now reach light years away).

We're probably talking about two different things. I don't have a problem with the TOS Enterprise moving through the atmosphere or swimming in liquid because she has demonstrated the ability to do so. The TFS Klingon Bird of Prey has demonstrated that thrusters and impulse (two separate propulsion systems) does not burn or irradiate the environment or people around them (and the Klingons are probably not too enviro-friendly )

The Kelvin-verse ships OTOH do appear to treat impulse and thrusters as the same and pushing out alot of damaging thrust (see ST: Beyond's Franklin take-off). So not sure if they cause issues that you allude to that the TOS/TFS didn't.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

Why would they need too? Starships are equipped with aquashuttles should any underwater missions need to be undertaken, it seems hugely preposterous that the entire ship would need to be taken underwater to complete it.

 

[publiusr]

Thicker than a nebula to hide in. Go for the thermocline

 

[blssdwlf]

Why would they need too? Starships are equipped with aquashuttles should any underwater missions need to be undertaken, it seems hugely preposterous that the entire ship would need to be taken underwater to complete it.

Maybe a starship is the only thing that can deliver an antimatter payload by swimming to the heart of an earth-sized space amoeba? Or can survive diving into a gas giant's atmosphere to rescue some ship that fell into it? Or need to hide in a dense nebula (dense enough to stop a ship and make it push into it).

But yeah, in "Into Darkness" they could've gave a reason why the Kelvin-Enterprise was loitering underwater near the volcano island instead of being in orbit.

 

[valkyrie013]

Can it go into an ocean? Sure.
Will there be alot of repairs to sensitive systems that were designed to operate in a vacuum but now are contaminated with water/salt water/ amoba fluids? You bet ya.

 

[blssdwlf]

Can it go into an ocean? Sure.
Will there be alot of repairs to sensitive systems that were designed to operate in a vacuum but now are contaminated with water/salt water/ amoba fluids? You bet ya.

Maybe in early space travel history this was a problem since early explorers would've thought like us that a space ship will always stay in the vacuum of space. But after a hundred years of travel (or more if you account for aliens contributing to Starfleet/Federation technology) then it would be reasonable to expect that ships are prepared for both vacuum and pressured travel through most atmospheres/oceans/nebulas except for very specific cases where ships are vulnerable like in "Chain of Command" and the McAllister Nebula. IMHO.