Does the on screen portrayal of Starfleet Backup & Safety Systems makes sense?

[Kamen Rider Blade]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I kind of agree with TriAngulum Studios, the portrayals of StarFleet's vaunted Triple Redundant Safety Systems doesn't match what is shown on screen.

When writers need things to fail, they default to "Failure" for dramatic effect instead of basing things on logical process of how tech works.

I think this is a detriment to long term world building.

When Janeway need Voyager to Auto-Destruct, the Secondary Command Processor was taken out by the Kazon which prevented that.

What happened to Triple Redundancy?

On modern Aircraft, most Aircraft have a minimum of 3x different physical routes for command signals to route.

Incase one signal routes fails, you have the other 2x.

Also the issue with Computer Consoles constantly exploding and being filled with rocks.

You don't need to route the EPS directly to the computer, convert it to traditional Electricity to run on Copper wires.

We have Circuit Breakers, UPS (UnInterruptible Power Supplies), backup power systems to prevent catestrophic events from blowing up the computer in the users face.

We honestly need better writers who aren't stuck on the same old tropes.

 

[C.E. Evans]

A starship is inherently a dangerous place to be, even if it's just sitting there at full stop. The energies running throughout the ship are deadly and probably way more powerful than anything we can handle today. But no technology will probably ever be completely 100% reliable, and if a ship undergoes a serious pounding due to battle or astronomical phenomena, those backup safety systems will likely be compromised as well. Doesn't matter if it's triple or quadruple redundant. Chief engineers and their crews do their best to keep a ship running, but under adverse conditions, something's gotta give, IMO. If you divert power from this, you're taking power away from that. If the recent trailers for DIS are correct, not even artificial gravity is immune to failure, although I would argue it's "by nature"----one of the more rugged systems aboard a starship.

We know the real-world reasons why for dramatic storytelling some systems seem to fail very easily or at the worst possible times--but "in-universe," Murphy's Law could be the one true constant in the Universe. The one thing you don't want to fail, will, and often when you need it the most to work.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

We know the real-world reasons why for dramatic storytelling some systems seem to fail very easily or at the worst possible times--but "in-universe," Murphy's Law could be the one true constant in the Universe. The one thing you don't want to fail, will, and often when you need it the most to work.

Yet, Gravity Plating seems to be the most reliable (Obviously we know the out of universe reasons for it) ^_-

 

[Go-Captain]

He's right, the self destruct one does not make sense, but there is a simpler bit of nonsense. If the secondary processor is destroyed, that leaves the primary processor, so why does destroying the secondary system matter at all when the main system is fine?


Again, right about the warp core. The warp core would make sense if it were actively held back against something like a spring, so ejection is as simple as removing some blocks manually or automatically so it can shoot out. Even without power it would still get enough of a kick to clear the hull. At the very least it could have its own isolated power system to run a magnetic accelerator setup to shoot the warp core to a safe distance.


Exploding consoles actually make sense as a final line of defense, because the ship doesn't have room for open air breakers like this. If you have an arc like that in a confined space it will ground out through something random. They can't keep the system in vacuum either, because people need access and having lines of vacuum through the ship may not be practical. Also, the voltages may be so high for main power they can vacuum arc. There has to be a last line of defense, but keep in mind if full voltage were getting through then the entire bridge would vaporize with one console explosion. Since that does not happen, the system is working.

This final defense is exploding consoles. I don't remember exactly how it would work in real life, but imagine the power grid has shorted and there is a deadly arc going through the console which will kill the occupant. Instead of making it all the way, the console explodes cutting the arc either by removing the material for conduction, or blowing the arc away to disrupt it. The occupant is a casualty but not dead, and only one person is hurt instead of the whole bridge.

We should also keep in mind that console explosions happen primarily due to attacks, and happen through shields. These attacks might be like EMPs and could be bypassing the power system defenses which could be more for stopping self inflicted, localized surges.

But, should console explosions happen? No. I think it's somewhat lazy action. TOS has a single console explosion. Most of TOS' combat drama comes from the intellectual struggle and works better than other Trek combat because of that, short of DS9's huge battles.


I think we have to keep in mind that what we are really seeing are always extraordinary situations, the worst and best of all events. If these situations were normal Starfleet probably would be depopulated in a generation or so. Lower Decks backs this up by indicating the episode missions are so extremely notable they are famous in-universe. Otherwise 1/5 of all ships would be Voyager or god forbid Discovery.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

He's right, the self destruct one does not make sense, but there is a simpler bit of nonsense. If the secondary processor is destroyed, that leaves the primary processor, so why does destroying the secondary system matter at all when the main system is fine?

Exactly! Writers don't know what they're doing.

Again, right about the warp core. The warp core would make sense if it were actively held back against something like a spring, so ejection is as simple as removing some blocks manually or automatically so it can shoot out. Even without power it would still get enough of a kick to clear the hull. At the very least it could have its own isolated power system to run a magnetic accelerator setup to shoot the warp core to a safe distance.

Maybe we should suggest it to the OSHA department of StarFleet. That simple BackUp Spring idea could save lives =D.

Exploding consoles actually make sense as a final line of defense, because the ship doesn't have room for open air breakers like this. If you have an arc like that in a confined space it will ground out through something random. They can't keep the system in vacuum either, because people need access and having lines of vacuum through the ship may not be practical. Also, the voltages may be so high for main power they can vacuum arc. There has to be a last line of defense, but keep in mind if full voltage were getting through then the entire bridge would vaporize with one console explosion. Since that does not happen, the system is working.

This final defense is exploding consoles. I don't remember exactly how it would work in real life, but imagine the power grid has shorted and there is a deadly arc going through the console which will kill the occupant. Instead of making it all the way, the console explodes cutting the arc either by removing the material for conduction, or blowing the arc away to disrupt it. The occupant is a casualty but not dead, and only one person is hurt instead of the whole bridge.

Or they can cut the main power supply from the rest of the vessel during Red Alert and run on local internal power sources / batteries and turn the bridge into one large "Safe Room / FaraDay Cage". Line the entire Bridge Module with Neutronium and anything else necessary to isolate it from the rest of the ship and run it's own Power / Life Support / "Replicators".

The data connections are already operating on ODN (Fiber Optics) and have a SubSpace Radio / Regular Radio backup as well.

"The Expanse" showed how they isolated their Bridges on Shock Absorbers and sealed it from invasion.

Something that StarFleet can learn from by completely Isolating the "Bridge Module" from the rest of the vessel.

We should also keep in mind that console explosions happen primarily due to attacks, and happen through shields. These attacks might be like EMPs and could be bypassing the power system defenses which could be more for stopping self inflicted, localized surges.

But, should console explosions happen? No. I think it's somewhat lazy action. TOS has a single console explosion. Most of TOS' combat drama comes from the intellectual struggle and works better than other Trek combat because of that, short of DS9's huge battles.


I think we have to keep in mind that what we are really seeing are always extraordinary situations, the worst and best of all events. If these situations were normal Starfleet probably would be depopulated in a generation or so. Lower Decks backs this up by indicating the episode missions are so extremely notable they are famous in-universe. Otherwise 1/5 of all ships would be Voyager or god forbid Discovery.

I concur, it's incredibly lazy and silly. Maybe they should find new ways of showing action / drama without the exploding console trope.

 

[publiusr]

That open air breaker video was awesome.

Now, planes today with composites and fly-by-wire are kinda going Starfleet, where all metal birds of the 70’s seemed tougher…like TOS tech?

I would rather one or two consoles cook off than all flatscreens going dark.

 

[fireproof78]

We honestly need better writers who aren't stuck on the same old tropes.

Then it's not Star Trek

Honestly, if we treat Star Trek as a period piece then these tropes are here to stay. I know this is the tech forum and getting in to the technical nitty-gritty is the purpose of it, and expanding upon presented dramatic tropes. But, I feel obligated to say that ignoring that the purpose is drama is going to lead to frustration. Basically, demanding that this fictional television show behave like real life ignores this idea that it is supposed to entertain first and foremost.

That said, the exploding consoles, as others have noted, are not just run of the mill day to day operations. They are usually under extreme stress, like combat, and multiple systems are failing, including failsafes which are demonstrated to fail when power is altered across multiple occasions and ships. The stress of combat on the systems may simply be too much for every single system to compensate for all the energies being pushed about.

He's right, the self destruct one does not make sense, but there is a simpler bit of nonsense. If the secondary processor is destroyed, that leaves the primary processor, so why does destroying the secondary system matter at all when the main system is fine?

This one actually makes more sense to me, but this is only my lay understanding of computer programming and encryption. Basically, the two processors are utilizing encryption keys and have to share them to verify. Again, a very thin explanation as the primary system should still work but it might utilize a portion of that processor interrupting the verification.

Or they can cut the main power supply from the rest of the vessel during Red Alert and run on local internal power sources / batteries and turn the bridge into one large "Safe Room / FaraDay Cage". Line the entire Bridge Module with Neutronium and anything else necessary to isolate it from the rest of the ship and run it's own Power / Life Support / "Replicators".

As demonstrated repeatedly in multiple shows Starfleet does not believe in protecting the bridge.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

But, I feel obligated to say that ignoring that the purpose is drama is going to lead to frustration. Basically, demanding that this fictional television show behave like real life ignores this idea that it is supposed to entertain first and foremost.

There are plenty of OTHER methods of creating "Drama" without making StarFleet look technically incompetent.

Other shows manage to make their main organization look somewhat competent.

"Babylon 5", "The Expanse", "24".

There are PLENTY of other methods of inducing "Drama" without relying on technical stupidity or incompetent design.

s demonstrated repeatedly in multiple shows Starfleet does not believe in protecting the bridge.

That needs to change, this can show progress in design.

 

[fireproof78]

There are plenty of OTHER methods of creating "Drama" without making StarFleet look technically incompetent.

Other shows manage to make their main organization look somewhat competent.

"Babylon 5", "The Expanse", "24".

There are PLENTY of other methods of inducing "Drama" without relying on technical stupidity or incompetent design.

There are, but not in Star Trek. Sorry, after 50 years that's a feature not a bug. And 24 is a piss poor example as it operates in the real freaking world!

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

There are, but not in Star Trek. Sorry, after 50 years that's a feature not a bug. And 24 is a piss poor example as it operates in the real freaking world!

Sometimes, it's good to change.

Real World, or not; "24" is a great example of not using "Technical Design Incompetence" in their organization's tech to screw them over.

 

[fireproof78]

Sometimes, it's good to change.

Real World, or not; "24" is a great example of not using "Technical Design Incompetence" in their organization's tech to screw them over.

I know very little of 24 so if you want me to have that as an example it would be helpful to provide actual examples. Otherwise, I'll dismiss 24 as real world military procedural that means little to the space fantasy world of Star Trek.

Sometimes, it's good to change.

I agree but demanding writers due something different after watching the mud slinging over changes in the last ten years is not inspiring. Insulting writers is not inspiring either. Examples are more helpful in this discussion. Otherwise, it just looks like more "writers as online punching bags."

I 100% agree that Star Trek could use a change similar to the Expanse, from what I know of that show. That's why I 100% want a reboot of Trek and not the constant fudging of trying to make this series a period piece that must operate by a specific set of rules as informed by the real world.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

I agree but demanding writers due something different after watching the mud slinging over changes in the last ten years is not inspiring. Insulting writers is not inspiring either. Examples are more helpful in this discussion. Otherwise, it just looks like more "writers as online punching bags."

I 100% agree that Star Trek could use a change similar to the Expanse, from what I know of that show. That's why I 100% want a reboot of Trek and not the constant fudging of trying to make this series a period piece that must operate by a specific set of rules as informed by the real world.

I'm tired of Reboots in general. I have my own 26th Century Head Canon that I want them to move forward in time by a little bit.

Then we can implement more serious / useful changes in the writing structure.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm tired of Reboots in general. I have my own 26th Century Head Canon that I want them to move forward in time by a little bit.

Then we can implement more serious / useful changes in the writing structure.

I don't see that happening. Star Trek has its own tropes and such and without a reboot making changes to the writing structure is going to be very, very, difficult.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

I don't see that happening. Star Trek has its own tropes and such and without a reboot making changes to the writing structure is going to be very, very, difficult.

It's still worth pursuing IMO, but that's the struggle of an outsider vs those who control the franchise.

 

[fireproof78]

It's still worth pursuing IMO, but that's the struggle of an outsider vs those who control the franchise.

I agree it is worth doing but I think that beating up the writers is not the way to find change. If not a reboot then there would need to be a willingness to tell a dramatically different style of Star Trek story than what a lot of individuals, especially fans, call "Star Trek."

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

I agree it is worth doing but I think that beating up the writers is not the way to find change. If not a reboot then there would need to be a willingness to tell a dramatically different style of Star Trek story than what a lot of individuals, especially fans, call "Star Trek."

You don't need "Consoles Exploding" in the face of a poor red shirt to tell a good "Star Trek" story.

You don't need "Safety Systems" failing to tell a good "Star Trek" story.

Many of the best episodes of "Star Trek" didn't feature any of these Trek Tropes.

I'm sure we can all evolve past it.

 

[fireproof78]

You don't need "Consoles Exploding" in the face of a poor red shirt to tell a good "Star Trek" story.

You don't need "Safety Systems" failing to tell a good "Star Trek" story.

Many of the best episodes of "Star Trek" didn't feature any of these Trek Tropes.

I'm sure we can all evolve past it.

You don't need Star Trek either. This isn't about need though.

 

[Dumbbell]

It used to be that the TV shows and movies focused on telling a story. Sometimes, you had to make a long story short and sometimes you had to pay too much for a better story, visually. Some of that is changing. Now, we have the other extreme where some stories are almost entirely about visual effects.

In general, I would agree that most portrayals of safety and backup systems do not make sense, but then it would be boring to watch three attempts to make it happen and each attempt fail when I could just watch one attempt fail and get the point.

I do prefer a lot of the books though, technical ones.

For example, as to safety and backup, we have the Enterprise refit with many different safety and backup systems. We have a bridge module that can detatch and operate as a lifeboat, a primary hull that can separate and make planetfall, an engineering hull with lifeboats and shuttles and warp engines that can jetison away.

Sadly, we never saw most of these things portrayed unless you read books.

 

[Timo]

He's right, the self destruct one does not make sense

I don't have the patience to watch videos, but I assume it's all about "making the ship blow up shouldn't be hard"?

Yet it's not about that. The heroes seldom want to blow up their ship - rather, they want to blow up their enemy while not dying themselves. And that calls for a countdown timer. If that one is broken, somebody has to commit suicide to create the core breach, and our heroes in general are not suicidal.

Again, right about the warp core. The warp core would make sense if it were actively held back against something like a spring, so ejection is as simple as removing some blocks manually or automatically so it can shoot out. Even without power it would still get enough of a kick to clear the hull. At the very least it could have its own isolated power system to run a magnetic accelerator setup to shoot the warp core to a safe distance.

Making core ejection foolproof doesn't sound like it would solve anything much. After all, it's not the core that is the issue, it's the antimatter. And the antimatter is everywhere: in the core (in very small amounts), in the tanks (in immense amounts), and in all the piping in between. Eject the core (or the tanks) and you risk creating a leak that will kill you.

So it's all about purging first. If you can't purge, ejection doesn't help.

Perhaps you basically never can purge, and you always die, but the ejector is there to make sure that only you die, and not every other starship within a lightsecond of your ship? Our heroes would then abuse the system to actually save their own skins in a couple of low-risk situations where purging actually is possible - and would also hit several scenarios where the inability to purge means there is no ejection, and either a workaround is found, or then they all do die and it's a time loop or whatever.

Exploding consoles actually make sense as a final line of defense, because the ship doesn't have room for open air breakers like this.

The problem being, the ship (at least in TNG) has room for indoors mountain ranges.

And if that doesn't suffice, surely they could just build a bigger ship still.

I think we have to keep in mind that what we are really seeing are always extraordinary situations, the worst and best of all events. If these situations were normal Starfleet probably would be depopulated in a generation or so. Lower Decks backs this up by indicating the episode missions are so extremely notable they are famous in-universe. Otherwise 1/5 of all ships would be Voyager or god forbid Discovery.

Then again, LDS also makes a point of establishing that weird adventures happen to all ships, including the humblest ones (like the Cerritos) and the coveted rest (like the Vancouver). But we could well argue that as a rule, Starfleet loses ships to this weirdness, and the camera follows those ships that happen to survive an interesting number of adventures before going kaboom. It's just a bit odd statistically that at least three ships named Enterprise would be among the multi-survivors. But it could be that the heroes aboard actually have a say in that... Or at least are relevant in acting as good luck charms (Picard and Sisko enjoy divine protection, say).

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Deks]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I kind of agree with TriAngulum Studios, the portrayals of StarFleet's vaunted Triple Redundant Safety Systems doesn't match what is shown on screen.

When writers need things to fail, they default to "Failure" for dramatic effect instead of basing things on logical process of how tech works.

I think this is a detriment to long term world building.

When Janeway need Voyager to Auto-Destruct, the Secondary Command Processor was taken out by the Kazon which prevented that.

What happened to Triple Redundancy?

On modern Aircraft, most Aircraft have a minimum of 3x different physical routes for command signals to route.

Incase one signal routes fails, you have the other 2x.

Also the issue with Computer Consoles constantly exploding and being filled with rocks.

You don't need to route the EPS directly to the computer, convert it to traditional Electricity to run on Copper wires.

We have Circuit Breakers, UPS (UnInterruptible Power Supplies), backup power systems to prevent catestrophic events from blowing up the computer in the users face.

We honestly need better writers who aren't stuck on the same old tropes.

The premise is certainly sound in regards to triple redundancy.
Execution on the other hand was not... but as we established, this was mainly down to the writers using 'drama' to make things just 'not work' for the sake of the story.

In regards to Auto destruct not functioning due to secondary command processors being taken out by the Kazon... its possible that some system don't have triple redundancy but in fact only have two (space limitations could have been a potential issue)... that, or the writers conveniently forgot about it because if Janeway destroyed the ship... no more show... honestly, I do think a better solution needed to be thought of.

However, Seska was also part of engineering staff for a while before she left the ship (months), so she had rather ample opportunities to familiarize herself with Voyager's systems and its vulnerabilities... so this one is not too problematic to work with when you think about it given that the Kazon all focused on the same part of the ship... which could have also been connected to the majority of the redundancies (triple ones).

Computer consoles exploding with rocks... well, its certainly a doozy and needs to be addressed... but we know the ship runs on highly charged plasma. During combat situations, consoles don't ALWAYS blow up in people's faces... usually only if the enemy weapons are quite powerful and the shields are down to lower levels is when we saw the consoles exploding.
This could be a feedback problem that SF was unable to solve as of yet.
Maybe a wireless power transfer would have been better in that case... but it could demonstrate to be a problem is power is cut off during combat, leaving the crew unable to operate the ship via consoles. So wired connections might be used to ensure power supply (though the consoles don't need that much power and shouldn't really be able to conduct that kind of charge).

Maybe its the nature of using subspace technology which can have sometimes unpredictable issues.

Circuit brakers are fine for electricity... would they be effective for plasma overloads?
Voy crew DID explore a dampening field mechanism in that self-destroying nebula in the early seasons and some ideas flew around the bridge for the purpose of preventing Warp core breaches and other overloads... but this never came to pass... or it may have reduced the FREQUENCY of surges they experienced.

Perhaps Starfleet was able to integrate this into the Protostar systems to prevent such issues... who knows.