Spoilers Starship Design in Star Trek: Picard

[C.E. Evans]

In another thread I recently calculated that under full impulse the newly refitted Constitution-class Enterprise was shown to be able to sustain an acceleration of somewhere between ~2,860g and ~4,660g for nearly two hours under impulse, which even at the low end is greater than the acceleration of a bullet in the barrel of a gun. Starships are not fragile.

But starships are not indestructible. They can be--and often are--subjected to forces that exceed what their spaceframes can actually handle. And the more "frail" a design is--the more skinny and elongated load-bearing components it has--the worse the situation is.

A few extra g here and there from a gravity well should not cause them a problem because their structural integrity systems and inertial dampers routinely handle way more than any planet, and most stars, can generate.

We're talking about more than a few extra gs here and there. But in any event, a structural integrity field is just an extra bit of hull reinforcement. They are meant to simply keep a large starship's hull from deforming during high accelerations. They can't keep a ship from flying apart when subjected to various stresses. And just like deflector shields, a SIF can lose power and fail under duress.

And inertia dampers simply keep crewmembers from being smeared across bulkheads at impulse velocities.

 

[HotRod]

And the more "frail" a design is--the more skinny and elongated load-bearing components it has--the worse the situation is.

You just described half the ships in Starfleet. I mean, that's kinda the whole look of Star Trek. They didn't want "just another Rocket Ship." They wanted something that looked like it couldn't possibly be built and exist in real life.

 

[Macintosh]

But starships are not indestructible.

I never claimed they were, only that what qualifies as "physical stress" is of a very different magnitude to what people seem to think it is. If your ship can deal with thousands of g without structural compromise and anyone onboard noticing, why would going near an Earth-level gravity well cause issues?

They can be--and often are--subjected to forces that exceed what their spaceframes can actually handle. And the more "frail" a design is--the more skinny and elongated load-bearing components it has--the worse the situation is.

But that depends on how "load-bearing" the physical structure of the ship needs to be. What is the tensile strength of tritanium or duranium?

We're talking about more than a few extra gs here and there.

A 23rd century starship can comfortably withstand thousands of g for extended periods of time. There is nothing in a typical solar system that generates thousands of g. The gravity at the photosphere of our sun is 28g. Remember, relativistically there's no difference between acceleration due to thrust and acceleration due to gravity.

But in any event, a structural integrity field is just an extra bit of hull reinforcement. They are meant to simply keep a large starship's hull from deforming during high accelerations.

But those forces due to acceleration would affect all parts of the ship simultaneously. The hull doesn't "keep out" forces. That's not how forces work.

They can't keep a ship from flying apart when subjected to various stresses.

Why?

And just like deflector shields, a SIF can lose power and fail under duress.

Sure, but we've seen many times that certain field systems aboard a starship – like gravity or antimatter containment – are remarkably robust, even aboard quite primitive starships. Remember, by the time of TNG these people have had forcefield technology for longer than we've had steam power today.

And inertia dampers simply keep crewmembers from being smeared across bulkheads at impulse velocities.

Velocities don't cause forces; accelerations do. An inertial damper field would affect everything within it in the same way. It's not just "fancy sci-fi seatbelts" for the crew, it would also affect the internal structure of the ship. You've got a two-prong system of the ship being structurally extremely robust and negating forces acting upon it and its contents during routine operation, so why would "a few g" be a problem?

 

[C.E. Evans]

I never claimed they were, only that what qualifies as "physical stress" is of a very different magnitude to what people seem to think it is. If your ship can deal with thousands of g without structural compromise and anyone onboard noticing, why would going near an Earth-level gravity well cause issues?

You think that particular design can withstand that? I'd have to disagree.

But that depends on how "load-bearing" the physical structure of the ship needs to be.

It's common sense. You don't put something big and heavy atop something really light and thin, even in a microgravity environment. There's bound to be some structural deformation.

A 23rd century starship can comfortably withstand thousands of g for extended periods of time.

A Galaxy-class starship can't, however. Without a SIF, a Galaxy-class will experience structural damage with accelerations of only 3g. So we've got a discrepancy there in our figures.

There is nothing in a typical solar system that generates thousands of g. The gravity at the photosphere of our sun is 28g. Remember, relativistically there's no difference between acceleration due to thrust and acceleration due to gravity.

See above. While accelerations of 1000g are not unheard of at full impulse, it is by no means something that's supposed to be routine. A SIF almost has to max itself out to keep a Galaxy-ship's hull from buckling at such times, but thankfully it isn't something that it has to do for very long.

But those forces due to acceleration would affect all parts of the ship simultaneously. The hull doesn't "keep out" forces. That's not how forces work.

No one actually said that, certainly not me, but most Federation starships aren't homogenous from stem to stern, they're comprised of different sections with varying amounts of mass. So some sections may fail before others even if they are all subjected to the same forces simultaneously. A SIF is there to ensure a big ship's spaceframe isn't distorted by using forcefields to tighten and flex parts of the hull where needed.

Why?

Because a SIF has limits. Just like deflector shields, It isn't some infinitely-powered device that can protect a ship indefinitely.

Sure, but we've seen many times that certain field systems aboard a starship – like gravity or antimatter containment – are remarkably robust, even aboard quite primitive starships. Remember, by the time of TNG these people have had forcefield technology for longer than we've had steam power today.

Well, antimatter containment isn't that remarkably robust, because there's been times it nearly failed on the Enterprise and completely failed on doomed non-hero ships. And I would argue that artificial gravity is tied into a ship's life-support system and will always be among the last systems to fail even in the event of total power loss.

Velocities don't cause forces; accelerations do. An inertial damper field would affect everything within it in the same way. It's not just "fancy sci-fi seatbelts" for the crew, it would also affect the internal structure of the ship. You've got a two-prong system of the ship being structurally extremely robust and negating forces acting upon it and its contents during routine operation, so why would "a few g" be a problem?

Because "a few g" can be enough to kill some people. 3g is sort of the maximum safe acceleration for everyone, although admittedly there are those that can easily withstand much more. And while the IDF does work in tandem with the SIF in regards to keeping a ship together, its primary purpose is to protect the crew.

 

[HotRod]

It's common sense. You don't put something big and heavy atop something really light and thin, even in a microgravity environment. There's bound to be some structural deformation.

Like these?

 

[Macintosh]

You think that particular design can withstand that? I'd have to disagree.

The nacelle pylons of a Constitution-class ship are three metres thick, support gigantic nacelles that account for over ten percent of the ship's volume each, and yet can withstand several thousand g while bearing the weight of something that must have a mass of some 30,000 tons

It's common sense. You don't put something big and heavy atop something really light and thin, even in a microgravity environment. There's bound to be some structural deformation.

...You have seen nacelles, right? All we're establishing here is that starships cannot possibly function without structural integrity fields. Which is kind of my argument given the kind of forces we see them routinely dealing with.

A Galaxy-class starship can't, however. Without a SIF, a Galaxy-class will experience structural damage with accelerations of only 3g. So we've got a discrepancy there in our figures.

So you're agreeing that the structural integrity field does increase the structural strength of a ship by hundreds of times? Cool. There's no discrepancy there.

See above. While accelerations of 1000g are not unheard of at full impulse, it is by no means something that's supposed to be routine.

The TNG Technical Manual specifies that "required performance" of the impulse engines is an acceleration of 10km/sec². "Full impulse" is normally given as being 0.25c and if a ship is going to dawdle along pulling only a sluggardly 3g at maximum then getting to full impulse from full stop is going to take it about a month.

A SIF almost has to max itself out to keep a Galaxy-ship's hull from buckling at such times, but thankfully it isn't something that it has to do for very long.

Says who?

No one actually said that, certainly not me, but most Federation starships aren't homogenous from stem to stern, they're comprised of different sections with varying amounts of mass. So some sections may fail before others even if they are all subjected to the same forces simultaneously. A SIF is there to ensure a big ship's spaceframe isn't distorted by using forcefields to tighten and flex parts of the hull where needed.

Because a SIF has limits. Just like deflector shields, It isn't some infinitely-powered device that can protect a ship indefinitely.

Nobody's saying otherwise. Something not being infinitely powerful does not mean it's pointless. Shields are going to collapse anyway, so do you not bother to raise them? Of course not.

Well, antimatter containment isn't that remarkably robust, because there's been times it nearly failed on the Enterprise and completely failed on doomed non-hero ships. And I would argue that artificial gravity is tied into a ship's life-support system and will always be among the last systems to fail even in the event of total power loss.

When fully fuelled a Galaxy-class starship holds 450 tons of antimatter. Not to mention over 200 photon torpedo warheads. To carry around that much antimatter when less than a gram coming into contact with regular matter would destroy the entire ship means that the containment systems must be, in fact, remarkably robust, because the ship doesn't explode when it gets a bump. Think about what it would be like carrying around 450 tons of concentrated nitroglycerin with all the rocking and jostling starships do, then think about how antimatter packs about eleven billion times more blam that. Yeah. It's robust. Robust does not mean impervious.

Because "a few g" can be enough to kill some people. 3g is sort of the maximum safe acceleration for everyone, although admittedly there are those that can easily withstand much more. And while the IDF does work in tandem with the SIF in regards to keeping a ship together, its primary purpose is to protect the crew.

But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about why ships should struggle with handling a few g when they routinely handle hundreds or thousands.

 

[HotRod]

But wait, there's more...

 

[C.E. Evans]

Like these?

Actually, no. That's not what I'm talking about at all. Just one particular design.

 

[NCC-73515]

I've probably mentioned this before, but I was once telling my wife about some Discovery vs Enterprise starship nerd thing and she simply responded, "Oh, I thought they were the same."

In a discussion with other fans who didn't understand the whole Discoprise topic, I put a picture of the TOS and DIS 1701s next to each other to show the differences. First reaction: "What are we looking at here?" They didn't know which is which
And here, these discussions often end with someone posting a reductionist stick figure drawing saying that all rings with 2 thinner sticks on a thicker stick are the Enterprise

 

[C.E. Evans]

The nacelle pylons of a Constitution-class ship are three metres thick, support gigantic nacelles that account for over ten percent of the ship's volume each, and yet can withstand several thousand g while bearing the weight of something that must have a mass of some 30,000 tons

That's not the ship I'm talking about. Why are you bringing up a different ship than the one that was being discussed?

...You have seen nacelles, right?

You do know what ship I'm talking about, right? Or did you just jump in the middle of a conversation without knowing the details?

All we're establishing here is that starships cannot possibly function without structural integrity fields. Which is kind of my argument given the kind of forces we see them routinely dealing with.

Okay, apparently you didn't know what ship I was talking about after all, because the need for SIFs to reinforce some ships is what I've been saying all along.

So you're agreeing that the structural integrity field does increase the structural strength of a ship by hundreds of times? Cool. There's no discrepancy there.

The discrepancy is in the ships. A Galaxy-class is prone to more structural deformation than a Constitution-class.

The TNG Technical Manual specifies that "required performance" of the impulse engines is an acceleration of 10km/sec². "Full impulse" is normally given as being 0.25c and if a ship is going to dawdle along pulling only a sluggardly 3g at maximum then getting to full impulse from full stop is going to take it about a month.

You ignored where I said without a SIF.

Says who?

Aside from possibly the life-support system, no system runs at maximum power 24/7. Not the warp drive, not the impulse engines, and I would argue not the SIF either. Except for extreme accelerations and maneuvers, it wouldn't need to, or at least it shouldn't.

Nobody's saying otherwise. Something not being infinitely powerful does not mean it's pointless. Shields are going to collapse anyway, so do you not bother to raise them? Of course not.

That went right over your head, didn't it? My bad.

When fully fuelled a Galaxy-class starship holds 450 tons of antimatter. Not to mention over 200 photon torpedo warheads. To carry around that much antimatter when less than a gram coming into contact with regular matter would destroy the entire ship means that the containment systems must be, in fact, remarkably robust, because the ship doesn't explode when it gets a bump. Think about what it would be like carrying around 450 tons of concentrated nitroglycerin with all the rocking and jostling starships do, then think about how antimatter packs about eleven billion times more blam that. Yeah. It's robust. Robust does not mean impervious.

See above, but I would still argue that antimatter containment is more touchy than you claim it is. How many times have we heard a ship's computer warn of "antimatter containment failure in [INSERT TIME HERE}"? On the Enterprise and other hero ships, they can generally avert it. Not so much for most non-hero ships.

But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about why ships should struggle with handling a few g when they routinely handle hundreds or thousands.

That's the thing, I don't think the particular fan design I was talking about can.

 

[HotRod]

Actually, no. That's not what I'm talking about at all. Just one particular design.

If this is all about the Dedication Class fan design, I fail to see how its design is anymore "flimsy" then other, canon designs.

Especially when you put into account all the things mentioned above such as structural integrity fields and examples of much older designs being able to withstand tremendous stress.

*3D model is the work of Markkingsnorth over at https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/ded...ss-endurance-35e7e08f7c7a402e85afc8a9d133c7c2

 

[C.E. Evans]

If this is all about the Dedication Class fan design, I fail to see how its design is anymore "flimsy" then other, canon designs.

Especially when you put into account all the things mentioned above such as structural integrity fields and examples of much older designs being able to withstand tremendous stress.

*3D model is the work of Markkingsnorth over at https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/ded...ss-endurance-35e7e08f7c7a402e85afc8a9d133c7c2

I don't have a problem with this version of the ship. The pylons look more sturdier and less spindly.

 

[ExtremeSail]

If this is all about the Dedication Class fan design, I fail to see how its design is anymore "flimsy" then other, canon designs.

Especially when you put into account all the things mentioned above such as structural integrity fields and examples of much older designs being able to withstand tremendous stress.

*3D model is the work of Markkingsnorth over at https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/ded...ss-endurance-35e7e08f7c7a402e85afc8a9d133c7c2

My god, that's a beautiful ship.

 

[USS Artorius]

If this is all about the Dedication Class fan design, I fail to see how its design is anymore "flimsy" then other, canon designs.

Especially when you put into account all the things mentioned above such as structural integrity fields and examples of much older designs being able to withstand tremendous stress.

*3D model is the work of Markkingsnorth over at https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/ded...ss-endurance-35e7e08f7c7a402e85afc8a9d133c7c2

The perfectly blended the front half of a sovereign with the rear of the Connie Refit and smoothed out all the edges. This ship is definitely a winner!

 

[Wingcommanderdarkwolf01]

If this is all about the Dedication Class fan design, I fail to see how its design is anymore "flimsy" then other, canon designs.

Especially when you put into account all the things mentioned above such as structural integrity fields and examples of much older designs being able to withstand tremendous stress.

*3D model is the work of Markkingsnorth over at https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/ded...ss-endurance-35e7e08f7c7a402e85afc8a9d133c7c2

this should have been the Enterprise-G

 

[C.E. Evans]

this should have been the Enterprise-G

It really could have been, or maybe even should have been, IMHO. Even the neck of the ship is somewhat reminiscent of that of the Odyssey-class, but filled in.

But nooo, someone wanted a pseudo Constitution-class...

 

[Dukhat]

I don't think I'd be happy with this ship any more than the Odyssey or Connie III classes as the Enterprise. To me they're all unoriginal (with the proviso that the Connie III isn't original because it's 90% the same design as Bill Krause's Shangri-La, which is original, or at least a good extrapolation of a TMP era design.) I mean it's an ok design, but it comes off on me as more of a generic guest or background ship, not a hero ship.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Upon further reflection, I think that designing a new Enterprise is a damned if you do, damned if you don't project. You have some that want something totally different, and others that want something that doesn't stray too far. IIRC, in STO's Design the Enterprise-F Contest, one of the things that CBS wanted was something that could be easily identified from a distance as an Enterprise, while still allowing some new elements (at least for an Enterprise).

 

[Racefuel]

I think some of us, if not most of us, remember the initial reaction to the Enterprise-E was very mixed also. It was a severe departure from the Enterprise-D and not everyone handled it well.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

I think some of us, if not most of us, remember the initial reaction to the Enterprise-E was very mixed also. It was a severe departure from the Enterprise-D and not everyone handled it well.

I was one of those who was wondering why those fans were so upset at the new ship. I really love the look of the -E. It has nods to ships that came before all combined into a newer, sleeker version. It gave the appearance of something impressive but not to screw with at the same turn.