Structural Integrity of Starships?

[Manticore]

We've covered this ground before, but we saw a Klingon K'Tinga lose gravity as the ship was rotating with no appreciable structural stress to be seen...

In a sneak attack with shields down from an enemy with a very specific plan for the assassination and who knew exactly where to attack to achieve it. And it was restored in minutes.

And that is the only time we've seen gravity go down in around 800 hours of Trek.

I think that you aren't taking into account the changes in materials technology between now and then (especially considering influxes from the aliens a few centuries ahead of us). Our warships today need comparatively far less structural mass for the same strength than warships 200 years ago (or, hell, even a hundred years ago). That's because the materials that we use are vastly stronger for their weight than those used back then, ie wood, or less pure steel, etc. It's not hard to believe that materials scientists between now and the Enterprise came up with similar advances to allow the ship to be structurally much stronger than anything today while still appearing flimsy.

The Enterprise =/= a 1000 meter plastic model after all.

 

[YARN]

Condominiums Made of Unobtanium?

I think that you aren't taking into account the changes in materials technology between now and then (especially considering influxes from the aliens a few centuries ahead of us). Our warships today need comparatively far less structural mass for the same strength than warships 200 years ago (or, hell, even a hundred years ago). That's because the materials that we use are vastly stronger for their weight than those used back then, ie wood, or less pure steel, etc. It's not hard to believe that materials scientists between now and the Enterprise came up with similar advances to allow the ship to be structurally much stronger than anything today while still appearing flimsy.

Here is the problem with the "materials" argument; it fails to take into account the fact that the interior structure/layout of the ship is weak. Cross apply this to the forcefield argument. The 1701 is designed like it's primary purpose is to serve as an array of condominiums.

An airliner, for example, is made of materials that would have been miraculous to those living in the middle ages, but it is still designed to be strong. If you apply real-world physics to airframes it turns out they are very strong. Ditto for bridges. Old bridges were overbuilt because we didn't understand engineering. Newer, slimmer bridges aren't just made of better materials, but also have a better design.

Apologists in this thread, however, argue that Starfleet is profoundly lazy, showing concern only for magic materials and forcefields to do all the work.

Let's stipulate that they have magic technology, OK? As I said, we have magic technologies compared to past civilizations. When you look at the deck plans, the interior structural design of the Enterprise, you don't see significant evidence that it was built with adequate concern for structural solidity.

If I presented an architect detailed blue prints for the Enterprise, and told him/her, to build it, I would be told that the thing isn't really designed, structurally, to hang together.

The only real excuse presented is the "way beyond structural design" argument. That is, the Enterprise undergoes such POWERFUL forces in her travels that concern for structural design integrity is meaningless. If so, however, advocates should stop availing themselves to "real world" examples like bridges to apologize for the Big E. In the real-world, concern for structural integrity is an important design feature for all large scale structures and transports. If the Enterprise is "way beyond structural design," then real-world structures are really nothing like the Enterprise which relies entirely on magic materials (and since when have we not attempted to marry the best materials with the soundest design?) and magic force fields.

 

[Timo]

I don't think there's any sort of universality to that argument. Indeed, a Boeing 787 nicely serves for undoing it.

Airliners are built strong, yeah, but not as strong as they could be built: the wings are unbraced, for example. Bracing would make them stronger. Not monstrously stronger, not moderately stronger, but slightly stronger. By your argument, the braces would have to be there. But the airliner is a compromise, built with issues of drag in mind that the builder of a 1913 style aircraft would not understand; to him, modern engineers would be idiots. And what's with the wing taper? Wings of constant chord would obviously be stronger.

Bracing an airliner's wings is pennywise. Bracing a starship for the odd case of survivable loss of SIF is pennywise, too, apparently. The pounds we want to save are in different areas of engineering - perhaps literally in pounds (metric system be damned, as TOS stands proof), but more probably in cochranes.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[blssdwlf]

Condominiums Made of Unobtanium?
...
When you look at the deck plans, the interior structural design of the Enterprise, you don't see significant evidence that it was built with adequate concern for structural solidity.

I have yet to see any deck plans *accurately* depict the TOS 1701 as seen on TV. If you take the time to map out the ship as seen you'll find there is volume left over for structural support - at least enough for magic materials to do their job.

Edit: However, I doubt you'd be able to produce a set of deck plans that is accurate to the show to support your argument. Your argument only works against the creators of those "condominium" deck plans, but not the actual show.

 

[YARN]

I don't think there's any sort of universality to that argument.

Which one?

Indeed, a Boeing 787 nicely serves for undoing it.
Airliners are built strong, yeah, but not as strong as they could be built:

The admission that airliners are built strong, that structural integrity is an important design feature, is all that I need as it shows the disanalogy with the "way beyond structural design" (hereafter, WBST) argument.

Now, if you want to go beyond the WBST argument and make the case for structural integrity of the internal design of 1701, feel free to do so. You make an implicit argument which I deal with and reject below.

Otherwise, you're still limited to playing the God card (magic tech solves all) and WBST (in essence, the argument that solid design is a moot point).

the wings are unbraced, for example. Bracing would make them stronger. Not monstrously stronger, not moderately stronger, but slightly stronger. By your argument, the braces would have to be there. But the airliner is a compromise, built with issues of drag in mind that the builder of a 1913 style aircraft would not understand; to him, modern engineers would be idiots. And what's with the wing taper? Wings of constant chord would obviously be stronger.

Bracing an airliner's wings is pennywise. Bracing a starship for the odd case of survivable loss of SIF is pennywise, too, apparently. The pounds we want to save are in different areas of engineering - perhaps literally in pounds (metric system be damned, as TOS stands proof), but more probably in cochranes.

I see no such commitment which attaches to my argument which would force me to conclude that airliners would need these features. My argument is that the design of large structures and transports is concerned with the marriage between materials and that, consequently, the Enterprise should so evidence of the same. But we don't find this. Rather, we find that the 1701 is laid out like a curious underground apartment complex (it would have to be underground as the shape would collapse above ground).

I've laid out the Pepsi challenge, and it's telling that no one has risen to meet it. That is, find a structural engineer who would endorse the bones of the ship as a good idea for a solid structural design; find an architect who would dare build a 1:1 model of the thing without resorting multiple crutch-like supports. Commonsense and a good look at the blueprints is all one needs to see that prima facie the Enterprise is unsafe at almost any speed - you would not want to execute maneuvers, even the rather leisurely maneuvers of an airliner which need not worry about combat maneuvers, with the E without the benefit of magic force fields and magic materials.

Indeed, I submit that you have found no evidence of sound internal design, or you would be beating me about the head and shoulders with schematics, talk of supports, and so on!

It is telling that you are, again, forced into a corner of speculation. But, at least, you've put a new argument on the table. Let's call it the "For all we know, it has a solid design" argument - better yet, let's shorten it to the "For all we know" argument. Using 1913 as analogous point of reference to our own, you suggest that we are not epistemically placed to understand the mysteries of structural design in the 23rd century. We would, analogously argue for constant chord, for braces, and against taper (about which we would be clueless). The 1913 aeronautical engineer would mistakenly think that a modern airliner shows a lack of regard for good design (But he or she would still find evidence of concern for good design - would recognize aerodynamic wings and control surfaces and would see internal structures in place for support). We should note that you are no better placed in this analogy than anyone else, you are also a 1913 man compared to the mysteries of the Enterprise. And this means that no one really knows or could hope to offer proof either way!

The upshot of all this, of course, is that we are returned to playing the God car. In the future, they have mysterious materials, mysterious forcefields, AND (now) mysterious principles of structural design. Sure it seems to defy common sense, basic structural principles, and so on, but this is the mysterious future....

 

[Timo]

...Which in the end simply means that any attempt to belittle or condemn the future shown in Trek is misguided. The B787 vs. Breguet IX analogy is simply going easy on this; after all, both things are structures meant to fly on the basis of the same engineering principles. The real proof that condemning the future is unvalid comes when the more modern piece introduces transformational technologies in comparison with the old. Say, an aircraft that's built to be unstable is only valid because the technology of solid-state computing has been introduced to control it. A horseless carriage needs the internal combustion engine, a sailless ship needs the steam engine, the propeller or paddle, and so forth. And it's always possible to build a stable aircraft with computer FBW control, or a horseless carriage shaped like a horse-drawn one, or a sailless ship with masts. But there's no merit to claiming that this should categorically be done.

The technology of structural integrity fields is obviously a game-changing one as well. One only subjects oneself to total ridicule if one thinks the game will not be changed...

Indeed, I submit that you have found no evidence of sound internal design, or you would be beating me about the head and shoulders with schematics, talk of supports, and so on!

That is not the argument. The argument is that neither of us would recognize sound internal design even if it hit us on the forehead on our way to the transporter room. We cannot, by ample precedent and example.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[YARN]

Timo,

Please excuse the length of this post, but it introduces, I think, an important criterion which should not only govern our discussion, but all discussion in this sub-forum.

...Which in the end simply means that any attempt to belittle or condemn the future shown in Trek is misguided.

Or that any attempt to praise the future is also misguided...

And yet here we are in the Tech forum having rational(?) discussions about Treknology anyhow. You persuaded me about the primacy of gravity-as-life-support, so I think there is hope for rational discussion without dropping the God card.

The B787 vs. Breguet IX analogy is simply going easy on this; after all, both things are structures meant to fly on the basis of the same engineering principles.

Well...

"Indeed, a Boeing 787 nicely serves for undoing it."

I sense the shadow of divine mystery creeping over our discussion....

The real proof that condemning the future is unvalid comes when the more modern piece introduces transformational technologies in comparison with the old. Say, an aircraft that's built to be unstable is only valid because the technology of solid-state computing has been introduced to control it.

Fighter aircraft have always shown a design tendency favoring instability as this is linked to maneuverability.
But any plane will still have to abide by basic laws of aerodynamics which have been increasingly well-known since the Wright Brothers created their first wind tunnels.

An aeronautical engineer from early twentieth century would undoubtedly be surprised by the state of the art in the early 21st, but if shown design plans, told the structural tolerances of the materials, s/he could certainly be able to state whether or not the thing would fall apart under it's own weight. We're talking basic structural design here, informed by basic principles like strain, stress, load, force - stuff Archimedes knew about.

A horseless carriage needs the internal combustion engine, a sailless ship needs the steam engine, the propeller or paddle, and

And the Enterprise needs magic materials, magic forcefields, and magic structural design principles. It fails to abide by basic principles of sound design. From our vantage point we have no good positive/constructive explanation for the internal design structure of the Enterprise.

Indeed, we are now learning that there are no positive/constructive analogies (you've shifted from offering comparisons to arguing for disanalogies).

In effect, we're not really in disagreement. We both agree that from our vantage point, given what we know, the bones of the ship don't look sound.

We've gone over our reasons and the best explanation for your side is apparently "mystery" -- that is, arguments that, at best, establish the mere possibility or weak plausibility of what we don't know - and since Trek is not real - what we cannot know.

In effect, the discussion has collapsed down to the "for all we know" argument. We have no good reason to endorse the design of the Enterprise - it's beyond us.

I've already granted that in the Trek universe, the Enterprise is solid, but we can't really know that universe, so we can't discuss it on it's own terms. We can only discuss it on our terms. At the point that we've exhausted our good reasons that make sense of Treknology, we should conclude against it. In effect, the question is, in rational terms we can discuss, are starships structurally sound? The answer is no.

Why can't we play the God card till the bitter end?

My point of view stipulates to the God card - unless the Treknology directly contradicts what we've been told elsewhere about this universe a sort of literary anthropic principle holds. I agree that - for reasons we cannot know and which are only true for that fictional world, Treknology is simply "sound."

This last bit, I think, reveals why what I stipulate to should not be dragged into the discussion as a reason to argue against a critique of Treknology. If it is, then the point of this entire sub-forum is moot! Any rational discussion can be shut down by playing the God card - no aspect of Treknology could ever be criticized. What is bracketed out via stipulation, should not be bracketed back in lest we simply end all our discussions by invoking mystery, in effect, abandoning rational discourse.

 

[Timo]

An aeronautical engineer from early twentieth century would undoubtedly be surprised by the state of the art in the early 21st, but if shown design plans, told the structural tolerances of the materials, s/he could certainly be able to state whether or not the thing would fall apart under it's own weight.

Quite so. But just like he would be capable of judging that but mistaken about the need for relaxed stability, an engineer from today might be capable of judging whether a starship can move under Newtonian thrust (although most starships look like they can't!), but mistaken about the need for structure. Different areas of "common sense" would be affected by different transformational technologies. And the effect of SIFs seems to be overarching in Star Trek, because so many of their structures appear flimsy.

We need to be selective about when to apply conventional wisdom and when to apply magic-based handwaving, because Trek consists of some bits that do make common sense, and others that don't. But we cannot alter Trek: what we see is what we get. So we have to alter our thinking, sometimes abandoning today's engineering wisdom, which is something we do absolutely need to do in certain well-known cases anyway: warp drive, transporters, phasers...

I've already granted that in the Trek universe, the Enterprise is solid, but we can't really know that universe, so we can't discuss it on it's own terms. We can only discuss it on our terms. At the point that we've exhausted our good reasons that make sense of Treknology, we should conclude against it. In effect, the question is, in rational terms we can discuss, are starships structurally sound? The answer is no.

Agreed, if by "rational terms" you mean thinking and evidence that excludes Star Trek. If, OTOH, "rational terms" are allowed to include evidence from Star Trek and, perhaps more importantly, to exclude evidence that is part of our universe but not part of Star Trek so far, then it's not too difficult to build card houses of logic that only fall apart when one removes the Star Trek evidence card, but otherwise remain standing. Bracingless starships are one of these houses, standing proud if we don't remove the SIF card.

In this group, we regularly discuss how one bit of Trek fiction affects another: episode A said this about shields, so how can episode B treat phasers this way when the shield issue should interfere? That's "rational" as far as the forum goes. And we should be allowed to do that "till the bitter end" and back, always concluding that if the real world doesn't agree, then the real world is wrong and can be ignored.

Really, we know the Trek universe better than our own when it comes to things that hold strange shapes together. Here and now, we would have to do complex tensor math to see if a starship survives its own weight. In the Trek universe, that's so pennywise that we can instantly forget all about it, just like today we don't need to calculate the air resistance of a steamroller or the weight of paint on a highway. We can discuss structural integrity in Trek terms, strangely enough, and IMHO we should.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[YARN]

Quite so. But just like he would be capable of judging that butip can move under Newtonian thrust (although most stars mistaken about the need for relaxed stability, an engineer from today might be capable of judging whether a starshhips look like they can't!), but mistaken about the need for structure. Different areas of "common sense" would be affected by different transformational technologies. And the effect of SIFs seems to be overarching in Star Trek, because so many of their structures appear flimsy.

I get where you are coming from, but all I need for my argument is for you to argue exclusively from the corner you're already in, not from analogy, but disanalogy in the name of mystery. Now you're repudiating Newton in the name of mystery. You might as well through Einstein and Bohr under the bus too, because there is nothing that we know about Relativity theory or quantum mechanics that offers a good explanation for the apparent lack of structural integrity of the 1701.

Your plausibility/possibility arguments in the name of "transformations" are OK as far as they go, but they only go so far as affirming what I have been arguing all along. Given what we know about the world, the Enterprise appears to be very weak as a structure.

I've already stipulated that "in-universe" the Enterprise is undoubtedly sound, but strangely you seem to wish to avoid a conclusion you've already agreed to...

Agreed, if by "rational terms" you mean thinking and evidence that excludes Star Trek.

I don't.

By rationality, I mean both fidelity (does it conform with what we know about OUR world?) and coherence (does it conform to its own premises?).

If, OTOH, "rational terms" are allowed to include evidence from Star Trek and, perhaps more importantly,to exclude evidence that is part of our universe but not part of Star Trek so far, then it's not too difficult to build card houses of logic that only fall apart when one removes the Star Trek evidence card, but otherwise remain standing. Bracingless starships are one of these houses, standing proud if we don't remove the SIF card.

You mean, throwing out what we know about the world when it conflicts with what we "know" about the Trek world?

What I know is that in our world, 1 to the 4th power is 1. Should we be impressed when Captain Kirk announces sound amplification of 1 to the 4th power? That is, a level of amplification which basic math tell us amounts to no amplification at all?

Medical science tells us that the human body is only up to 60% water - Dr. McCoy, however, informs us in the Omega Glory that the human body is 96% water. Seeing as how Star Trek supercedes our understanding of the world (since the fidelity criterion only counts in cases of confirmation - see below), however, we can no longer call this a Star Trek mistake! This is the price we'll pay for ejecting fidelity as a criterion.

In this group, we regularly discuss how one bit of Trek fiction affects another: episode A said this about shields, so how can episode B treat phasers this way when the shield issue should interfere? That's "rational" as far as the forum goes. And we should be allowed to do that "till the bitter end" and back, always concluding that if the real world doesn't agree, then the real world is wrong and can be ignored.

Well, that's a convenient way to argue Timo. When you think the real world agrees with you, you'll invoke analogies to WWI fighters and modern airliners. When the real world disagrees with you, you'll simply argue that the real world doesn't apply. In short, you'll have your cake and eat it too.
This is unacceptable on its face.

Now, if you're not going to try to have your cake and eat it too, you will restrict yourself exclusively to coherence (internal consistency) and not just fidelity (when you think it suits your side of the case), but I think you'd find that collar a little too tight. You've already shown a proclivity to avail yourself to arguing in terms of fidelity and coherence... ...and if someone (or, more likely, your own conscience) were to hound you - to the bitter end - each time you failed to play by the rules you're describing here, you might regret giving up this source of evidence.

So which is it? Will you attempt to have your cake and eat it too or will you attempt to cut yourself off from an entire field of evidence?

Really, we know the Trek universe better than our own when it comes to things that hold strange shapes together. Here and now, we would have to do complex tensor math to see if a starship survives its own weight.

On the contrary, everyone in this thread has agreed that the math wouldn't work out favorably, and that is all the dialectical proof that I need.

 

[Timo]

By rationality, I mean both fidelity (does it conform with what we know about OUR world?) and coherence (does it conform to its own premises?).

I don't see how this would contradict the view where the ship is accepted as being structurally unsound to the ignorant layman (fidelity) but for the very obvious and unproblematic reason that SIFs exist and must affect everything in Star Trek (coherence). Lack of bracings stems from Trek premises (which we must - and, without penalty, can - retcon to TOS because Kirk's ship would have needed the TNG era magic to fly at warp or impulse just as much as Picard's) and reinforces overall Trek continuity.

Well, that's a convenient way to argue Timo. When you think the real world agrees with you, you'll invoke analogies to WWI fighters and modern airliners. When the real world disagrees with you, you'll simply argue that the real world doesn't apply. In short, you'll have your cake and eat it too.
This is unacceptable on its face.

I really don't see why.

Because it accurately describes the Trek universe? That's not a fault.

Because it is not a position that can be attacked? That's not a fault, either - there's no a priori reason for a position to be vulnerable. I'm not postulating, I'm describing, and the description is unassailable because what we see is what we get. There need not be any room for an argument in that respect.

We cannot argue that the Trek universe is the same as our own: too many things are fundamentally different. People misspeaking is something both universes may share, of course. But several laws of physics are different out in the Trek world, and somehow this works out without making the electrons fly out of their atoms. Somehow, they have SIFs. And that shows, everywhere in Trek.

I really don't see why this ever ought to be a case of amazement. Flimsy space structures under high stress were the very first impossibility we were required to accept when Star Trek descended upon us: we saw that in the opening credits of both pilots! That's a defining characteristic of this particular universe, and one of the things that separates it from things like the new BSG or Bonestell's space art, both of which use heavy bracings for mood-building.

There's nothing wrong with ignoring the real world when describing fiction. One can decide to categorically or selectively unignore it, in which case one can get some humor out of dragons that fall out of the sky when an observant hero tells them they cannot possibly fly. But Trek isn't comedy of this nature. Its very consistency requires us to believe in SIFs as a basic tenet. And that makes bracings in a Starfleet starship an anachronism (or anuniversalism, or whatnot) that would jar against continuity - and nearly does when we see certain former Klingon set elements used to describe a Starfleet vessel in the TOS movies...

So, piece of cake, anyone? There's plenty to go around, and no limits.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[YARN]

By rationality, I mean both fidelity (does it conform with what we know about OUR world?) and coherence (does it conform to its own premises?).

I don't see how this would contradict the view where the ship is accepted as being structurally unsound to the ignorant layman (fidelity) but for the very obvious and unproblematic reason that SIFs exist and must affect everything in Star Trek (coherence). Lack of bracings stems from Trek premises (which we must - and, without penalty, can - retcon to TOS because Kirk's ship would have needed the TNG era magic to fly at warp or impulse just as much as Picard's) and reinforces overall Trek continuity.

Fidelity includes not only "folk beliefs" of ignorant laypeople, but also what people know about the world via mediated expert information. It's one of the ways in which humans (even experts) test narratives. Fidelity isn’t folk-wisdom, but rather a universal aspect of narrative testing.

NOTE: Many of the “ignorant laymen” to whom you refer are as bright or brighter, in some respects, than the writers who (often lazily) produce the Treknobabble which you are defending at the expense of reason. Take the Pepsi challenge. Produce your structural engineers, your architects, your shipwrights. Do the real world math. Are these ignorant laymen wrong?

Well, that's a convenient way to argue Timo. When you think the real world agrees with you, you'll invoke analogies to WWI fighters and modern airliners. When the real world disagrees with you, you'll simply argue that the real world doesn't apply. In short, you'll have your cake and eat it too.
This is unacceptable on its face.

I really don't see why.

Because it accurately describes the Trek universe? That's not a fault.

Yes, it is a fault. You aren’t merely offering descriptions (e.g., “the Enterprise has X number of lavatories”), but apologetic evaluations (e.g., “holding anti-matter in magnetic containers is a plausible means by which to store it as a power source – we should accept this as solidly plausible future science”). You are making arguments, not simply stating innocent descriptions. This thread isn’t titled “Descriptions of the Structure of Starships.” Rather, it asks a question which calls for an evaluation.

You cannot, on the one hand, invoke real world analogies to make arguments in favor of Star Treknology, but then deny the validity of the such comparisons when they don’t favor your side of the argument. Either we can use the real world for adequate comparison or we cannot.

Imagine having a discussion where someone argues that we can use historical evidence to support our hypotheses, but only when the evidence supports her side of the case. That you would not actually have to experience this scenario to know that this would only produce self-sealing explanations with a 100% confirmation bias means that yes we do have an a priori reason to reject such grounds of discussion.

Because it is not a position that can be attacked? That's not a fault, either –

Timo, the reason why a given position cannot be attacked matters crucially. If a position cannot be attacked, because doing so would require abandoning the law of non-contradiction, that’s one thing. If a position cannot be attacked because one interlocutor demands respect for vacuously tautological grounds, that’s quite another.

Basically, you are arguing that only your side gets to make use of real world evidence, because evidence which contradicts Trek is ruled out of court. When I point out the limitations of evidence you introduced, you repudiate your own evidence on the same grounds.

Criteria offer grounds by which we judge claims. They are independent. They are that by which a claim is judged. Criteria which are ultimately subservient to that which they judge are not criteria. You are equivocating, making comparative arguments when you sense advantage, but (now) claiming to be offer mere descriptions as you sense disadvantage. In actuality, you’re arguing that real world analogies are valid criteria ONLY when they confirm Treknology. When they do not, then the soundness and validity Treknological reasoning is preferred over the real world and (in our latest development) you pretend that you are merely offering descriptions. It’s like a defendant agreeing to be judged, only so long as you pronounce him innocent of any crimes. In effect, Star Trek is the criterion, and that is why we cannot find Treknology to be wanting in anyway, and this is precisely why we are at the end of rational discussion. Star Trek is simply right.

there's no a priori reason for a position to be vulnerable.

See above. There are a priori reasons for criteria to be independent, for our discussions to admit of evidence and reasons which may confirm or disconfirm our claims. At the point that you rule real world (i.e., fidelity) discomfirmation out of court, you’ve created a self-sealing explanation.

I'm not postulating, I'm describing,

Nonsense (and you know it).

This thread does is not asking for a description, but an evaluation. I have argued for a negative evaluation of the structural integrity of the 1701. You’ve responded arguments, not mere descriptions, in the attempt to challenge this evaluation.

What a strange thing it is you coyly pretend to be doing here. As if merely describing how many decks, workstations, turbolifts, etc., would directly offer a rejoinder! To our descriptions we must add analysis so as to offer any counter-evaluation. You can’t refute the claim that the World Trade Center towers collapsed after being weakened in a fire with a description of how many floors they had! Your attempt to pawn off your arguments as mere descriptions is disingenuous, a transparent attempt to weasel out of taking responsibility for your side of the argument.

and the description is unassailable because what we see is what we get.

Well, if it is simply true, because it is true in Trek, then it is indeed unassailable. It’s also uninteresting and NOT AT ALL what this thread is about. How many times do I have to repeat that I FREELY CONCEDE that strictly within the confines of the Trek universe the structure of every starship is sound?

There need not be any room for an argument in that respect. We cannot argue that the Trek universe is the same as our own: too many things are fundamentally different. People misspeaking is something both universes may share, of course. But several laws of physics are different out in the Trek world, and somehow this works out without making the electrons fly out of their atoms. Somehow, they have SIFs. And that shows, everywhere in Trek.

There are aspects of our universe which are very much like the Trek universe. In fact, Treknology has predicted some technological advances. Some aspects of Trek are VERY plausible. Doors that open automatically? Wireless communication devices that fit with the palm of one’s hand? Magnetic containment of antimatter? Small tablet-shaped computers? Potable memory devices that can be moved from one computer to another? High speed elevators? Computers that translate? Injections without needles?

Can we negatively judge Star Trek for being at variance with what we know about the real world (i.e., fidelity)? Yes. If the next Star Trek movie showed Captain Kirk riding a pink Pegasus on the surface of the moon without a spacesuit, a Pegasus which then flapped its wings and flew him to Mars, fans would (justifiably) complain. Suspension of disbelief requires plausibility, which is a function of being at least fuzzily/blurrily close enough to the real world that we can accept the reality with which we are being presented.

Fidelity is, therefore, not only an aesthetic criterion, but financial pressure which science fiction writers must negotiate. Yes, even Star Trek should make some minimal real-world sense.

There's nothing wrong with ignoring the real world when describing fiction.

Yes, there is. See above with regard to suspension of disbelief. Also, the genre of fiction we are discussion, SCIENCE fiction, especially requires at least making plausible gestures toward the real world. Writers must describe a world in which the audience can invest belief.

Of course, we’re equivocating with the word description again: “Well, I am not saying whether or not it’s plausible that Kirk would ride a pink Pegasus to Mars, I am merely describing the scene.”

One can decide to categorically or selectively unignore it, in which case one can get some humor out of dragons that fall out of the sky when an observant hero tells them they cannot possibly fly.

And we can decide to categorically ignore what threads are about, what our interlocutors have granted as uninteresting, and what we previously committed ourselves to.

But Trek isn't comedy of this nature. Its very consistency requires us to believe in SIFs as a basic tenet. And that makes bracings in a Starfleet starship an anachronism (or anuniversalism, or whatnot) that would jar against continuity - and nearly does when we see certain former Klingon set elements used to describe a Starfleet vessel in the TOS movies...

Star Trek isn’t consistent. It contradicts itself between series and films, and between these franchises. If Star Trek required consistency, we wouldn’t have Star Trek.

Star Trek requires both minimal coherence and fidelity to be praiseworthy and functional as a narrative. The contradictions cannot be too constant and too glaring and the technology has to be plausible enough that we aren’t thrown out of the reality with the all too obvious realization that this is not a possible world – even when we turn our brains off and uncritical take in this reality. For some of us, the supernova that was going to destroy the galaxy (ROFL) in the last film was one such moment.

So, piece of cake, anyone? There's plenty to go around, and no limits.

Timo Saloniemi

The same is true about horses---t your shoveling here – plenty to go around and no limits.

 

[Timo]

I don't really get your objection to this "not being what the thread is about". In your original post, you said the ship doesn't look structurally sound by today's principles, and that was the full extent of the post. A thread emerged of it when the claim was made that this is how Trek ships should naturally be, by ample Trek precedent/postcedent. (Which sounds like a circular argument, but only if we discuss starship interiors; everything else in Trek is structurally unsound, too, though, allowing us to use that for evidence.) The counterclaim was made that bracings appealing to our 21st century sensitivities should still be there, for rare emergencies. And the counter-counterclaim was that this is pennywise, with analogies thrown about on previously hugely important considerations seemingly being forgotten when transformational technologies reduce them from poundwise to pennywise.

And this is what is being continued here, right?

You say you see something that doesn't please you because it goes against known laws of physics or something. I fully agree, and everybody here does. Then you appear to say that known laws must be taken to account, always and in full, or else the show fails the fidelity test. And I agree that if the laws are taken to account that way, we get epic fail.

But going to reductio ad absurdum lengths about known laws of nature is simply throwing the game. Trek is explicitly based on abandoning some of those laws, and we accept this cheat when we watch the show. We don't accept pink pegasi above Mars (at least not so far), but we do accept SIFs. From stardate one. Or then we decide we don't treat Trek as a fictional reality, but merely as a random set of fictional elements, in which case our displeasure with cardboard walls shouldn't be a valid argument by our own standards.

We don't have another alternative there. Trek is defined by following certain laws of nature and ignoring/contradicting others. We don't have the luxury of declaring that one violation is the same as infinite violation, and condemning the show on that basis. But we do have the permission and the full incentive to describe which laws are being broken and which (so far) are not.

The description is the important part, because it brings forth the existence of the SIFs. Beyond that, actual argumentation is a triviality.

There's nothing to be argued about the unsoundness of the ship by today's principles: we saw the photographic model droop its nacelles from the start! But similarly, there's nothing to be argued about the soundness of it by the principles overarching the entirety of Star Trek. And here we are, arguing about the terrain in between: of how today's knowledge can be twisted to match observed Trek "reality", or how Trek "reality" can be twisted to match today's knowledge.

Twisting of reality is always a serious cheat, even when discussing a fictional reality - because at that point, we no longer discuss that reality, but some other realm of our own making. Yet it's pretty simple to find weak spots in the texture of reality (real or fictional): people can be mistaken, disingenious, or speaking in a language we don't comprehend. What we see isn't usually one of those weak spots, though. Mistakes and lies are typically ruled out - leaving the concept of "foreign language", of us seeing something we don't understand and thus misinterpret.

Feel free to attack the lack of bracings on that basis: perhaps they are hidden. I attack it that way, too: they are not made of matter. That's not the same as having flying horses (which could easily be worked into various fictional realms, of course) because it's something we already recognize as part of Star Trek. The show is all about magical forcefields and energy beams doing the job of physical matter (a favored approach in older scifi), and trying to paint that as anomalous and objectionable is just making you look silly. We don't step over the edge of an infinitely deep chasm of abandoning all natural sciences when we say that SIFs replace matter. We merely step onto a balcony that extends the edge a few meters over the chasm, a balcony already built for us in the pilot episodes, and we don't overstep that balcony. And no shoving with pink pegasi or other such silliness - we won't fall unless you unilaterally decide that the balcony doesn't exist.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Santaman]

In any case there's one very good example of a SIF-less ship enduring a lot of structural stress which is the Jenolan, it crashlanded onto the Dyson sphere, and has been lying there for about 80 years, it did barely have energy left to maintain the transporter buffer so we can safely assume that its had no operational SIF yet the nacelle pylons didn't buckle or droop and after a bit of tinkering the shp was up and running again.

 

[Timo]

Apparently, she had barely enough power for the transporter - and then barely enough power for artificial gravity! So why not barely enough power for structural integrity?

That is, it would be quite a coincidence if the combined gravitic pull of the star and the sphere exactly matched the one Earth gravity we observed when our heroes beamed in...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[blssdwlf]

@Timo, it should be 1g on the surface as thats the idea behind the dyson sphere. The Jenolan's gravity could have been out and no one would notice...

 

[Timo]

No, it won't be 1g on the outer surface.

That is, a hollow sphere will have no gravity on the inside, save for what is created artificially by a system that imitates gravitic pull but does not follow the inverse square law (because inverse square pull cancels itself out and creates said zero gee inside all hollow spheres). And what is created by the pull of the star in the center, of course.

What the outside has is thus dependent on what the star provides, what the mass of the sphere provides (because gravity won't cancel out on the outside, only on the inside), and what effect the artificial gravity we see in action on the inside has on the gravity felt on the outside. And there's no particular reason for that to be 1g.

Of course, the builders of the sphere could have fine-tuned their creation to indeed produce exactly 1g on the outer surface. But we see no obvious evidence of them having done so, past our heroes walking normally. Indeed, the Jenolan was supposedly pulled in by a gravitic anomaly, and a starship shouldn't succumb to mere 1g pull! Perhaps the outer surface has more like 150g, due to the sheer weight of the neutronium shell? Certainly this would call for active onboard artificial gravity on the Jenolan, just as much as abnormally weak surface gravity would.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[blssdwlf]

Why can't a starship succumb to a 1g pull if it were unpowered? Remember "mudds womenl" or "return of the archons"? We know the outersurface must have some gravity or the Jenolan would have floated off into space... but it doesn't have to be a crazy amount.

 

[Santaman]

In case of the Sydney class, its a single hull not even as large as most tankers (Jahre Viking was 458 meters long and 68.8 meters wide) it would be absolutely ludicrous to assume that it wouldn't be able to withstand 1g

To tell more about tankers, these things balance on three to four wave tops while half a million ton of oil is trying to drag them down, those waves roll underneath them so its a constant stressing of the hull at any given time not to mention storms and what not and these things are build as cheap as possible with the least amount of materials and people nag about the TOS Enterprise looking structually unsound? tsk..

 

[Saquist]

When you look at deck plans of starships they don't appear that they would be very sound, structurally. The decks appear to be very thin, as do the walls.

If, for example, one built a full-size 1:1 1701 model for an ultimate Trek museum, it seems to me that you would need multiple supports to keep the thing from falling apart. Even if you built it from the best materials, the neck would not support the primary hull, and the nacelles struts would bend and buckle.

Granted starships are live in space and have magic force fields holding everything together, but it seems that when a ship encountered a catastrophic loss of power the torsional stress from any significant change velocity (rotating or moving in a random direction) would tear the thing apart.

submarines are the best model for weightless constructions of this size.

http://www.khi.co.jp/rd/tech/upload_images/n166tr101a.jpg

Starships would be built in very large sections with the rigidity of those section constructed of solid piece supports. The more joints and section the more flexible and unstable a design.

The Saucer section is the hard part if you build it on Earth. I think you'd have to make some sort of honeycomb interiour spehre to support the outlying edge of the saucer like a saucer of the Enterprise A.

 

[YARN]

I agree that if the laws are taken to account that way, we get epic fail.

But going to reductio ad absurdum lengths about known laws of nature is simply throwing the game.

This is not what is happening under my argument. Recall what I said about the standards for coherence and fidelity with a work of fiction. I have neither argued that we must have perfect coherence nor perfect fidelity. The quest for perfect coherence resulted in the excesses of canon, and is the chief reason why the last film rebooted itself in a new universe which unshackled it from later timelines. Perfect fidelity is foolish as well. For fiction to be fiction it must, by definition, include some things which are not true. Science fiction is generally expected to have a higher level of fidelity than fantasy adventure, but even hard science fiction is still fiction.

My contention is that the design schematics do not reveal an internal structure which has minimal fidelity.

We should note that my argument is not so much that the 1701 of TV and film is structurally baffling (although the sheer number of decks in ST V certainly is dubious), but rather that quasi-canonical(?) franchise products, the various blue prints, are dodgy. Design schematics are amusements created for the geeks who want to know where sickbay is and where the chompers are. They are intended to provide another layer of immersion into the Trek universe. Immersiveness requires respect for suspension of disbelief which, in turn, requires concern for coherence and fidelity.

When we watch the show, the point is not to ask where the broom closet is, but to explore the theme(s) of the episode. The Treknical bits of information we are given in the story are not really meant to be scrutinized but to help move the plot along, define the context, and offer just enough suspension of disbelief to buy into the conceits of both. Design schematics, on the other hand, have no such point. Their sole purpose is to offer us an architectural reality. The plans are meant to be examined for our enjoyment. We are invited to follow the precise paths of the turbolifts, to consider the placement of the phaser arrays, to consider how many decks are in the saucer section, etc. They are meant to be scrutinized for our enjoyment and to answer geeky questions about a supposed reality. Where the blue prints fail is when we consider the structural soundness of this architectural reality. We are forced to conclude that the ship is held together by magic.

After a rigorous discussion in this thread, I am only more convinced that the blue prints do not pass muster in terms of the minimum fidelity such an artifact should present. Here’s why. (1) The deck plans do not pass the prima facie test on this question. That is, when we look at the plans with an eye for structural soundness, we only come away with more concerns. (2) The prima facie test is not challenged by expert understanding of structural engineering principles. We would be raising the bar too high to suggest that minimum fidelity demands that these blue prints meet expert standards, but that is not what we are talking about here. Rather, we are asking whether an expert understanding disproves lay understanding (thus revealing “hidden fidelity” of design which only an expert would really understand). Expert understanding in this case, however, does not appear to be a defeater, but rather a confirmer of the prima facie challenge. (3) Positive analogies in this thread have given way to disanalogies which support the “For all we know” argument. This stance, as I have argued, is simply the God card all over again (i.e., invoking magic design principles to compliment magic materials and magic forcefields). In short, there is nothing that WE know about the real world that directly establishes the plausibility of the blue prints. At most, we have the argument to ignorance – that we don’t know the future and the future often surprises us (which is a plausibility argument that does not refute the claim “for all we presently know”).

Moreover, if ANYONE would be able to cook up good arguments in favor of these schematics, it would be Trek fans in the tech forum.