Thoughts on Ground Transportation options in StarFleet that isn't by Shuttle/Transporter?

I really don't have issues with StarFleet having a "Jeep" like vehicle that's driven by advanced highly efficient Electric Motors and 24th century and above power sources.

If you're going to be planet side and need to cover many miles/km's, it makes sense to have a Energy Efficient method of mobility.

As nice as "Anti-Grav Hover Crafts" are, you might as well have a shuttle at that point because Shuttles would give you more options then a Hover Craft that only lift you a few meters off the ground.

I can see some useful-ness in Anti-Grav Hover Platforms for moving heavy cargo over rough & variable terrain, but that would be situational.

I guess it depends on what scenario each option would be better for.

 

DS9 referred to a hovercraft accident that killed Sarah Sisko.

 

But that was under "Civilian" circumstances I believe. Not related to StarFleet in any way.

 

Such as antigravity, perhaps? It's the one system that has no problem remaining operational when spacecraft lose power.

The forte of a wheeled vehicle in motion economy would be Standing Very Still: the Argo could cease consuming power in those situations. During movement, it would be straining and struggling against obstacles an antigrav flitter would never face, such as friction, loose gravel and small-scale gradients (including medium-sized rocks and spiders and android body parts and whatnot).

If antigravity consumes little or no power when there is no motion up or down, I could see Starfleet avoiding wheeled transportation as much as it can. Perhaps wheels would offer stealth? Potentially a near-zero-consumption antigrav might be a nasty radiator of easily detected energies. (We have little reason to think it would make a noise, say, though.)

Which is sort of a good reason to abandon wheeled vehicles, too. And aircraft that can't make it into space. And spacecraft that can't go to warp.

I gather the same mechanism that makes warp-less spacecraft valid (affordability?) will also make all other niche vehicles valid. Although some more valid than others.

My gripe with the Argo is that it looks so impractical: no cover for the users against dust, wind or rain, and a strangely bulky nose that hinders visibility down and forward, as if there were an ancient, bulky powerplant in there... But Starfleet may have its reasons for those. Perhaps the vehicle can survive weather and ford waterways if the user presses a button and erects a TAS-style forcefield? (Or, better still, a LDS-style blast shield!) And perhaps a special military requirement for quick ingress and egress rules out the applying of weather covers in all other situations?

A civilian vehicle might have more passenger space and less volume dedicated to what looks like machinery, even when dedicated to cross-country ops. I wonder if there are roads there, back in the future? That is, streets - places where it's not forbidden to operate wheeled vehicles? Our cityscapes so far have either been inconclusive, or showed an alternate San Francisco and London... Two cities that might retain roads and streets for the heck of it, much like the former retains cable cars today.

Timo Saloniemi

 

If an option exists and they don't use it, it was still an option.

 

But Anti-Grav vehicles seem like it's better suited for longer distances than the dozens of kilometers you would cover with a jeep.

I concur, for longer distances over rough terrain it makes sense.

I would never assume any functionality, especially Anti-Gravity would come at little or no power. Makes no logical sense. Everything consumes some amount of power, how efficient it is will depend on what's theoretically possible and how good your implementation is IRL. To make things fly IRL consumes a significant amount of power, to lift things via Anti-Grav, it must consume a certain amount of power to lift object, and even more energy to set object into motion.

As far as noise is concerned, I would assume it isn't significant, maybe a light low volume hum. We never hear Shuttles making a significant amount of noise when taking off, and I'm assuming its using a combination of Anti-Grav and Impulse to move about while within the effects of Planetary Gravity.

I guess everything is dependent on energy consumption, expediency, and functionality involved along with what mission parameters was each platform designed to do.

I agree, the Jeeps need more covering and some Aerodynamic Shaping for it's structure for Aerodynamic efficiency.

I see no reason why we wouldn't retain streets for Electric Vehicles.
Hover Vehicles need streets to land on as well along with parking.

Sometimes it's easier to maintain existing infrastructure and adapt your vehicles to it.

 

Or maybe, given that the rear compartment is mostly taken up by the gun, the front is a cargo bay? After all, rear or mid-engined cars that carry cargo in the front exist in real life.

Makes sense to me.

 

Well for the argo, there's probably some type of Force Field to protect against rain or wind, OR, it has some fancy milimeter folding origami thingy like Discovery had in there folding space helmets n stuff.
As for ground transport, depends on the situation, You usually have probably less than 1km to travel after transporting down, so a vehicle would be useless, if you had to go like 10 km, probably ask to be transportered over.
If it was a clear, roaded area an Argo may be usefull, but if your in a uninhabited area, a truck would be useless cuz of no roads. now a flying jeep would be more usefull.
All throughout Trek even back in Archer's day they had Air Cars, Skimmers, Hoppers Etc. that are anti gravity equiped. So this being an animation, be quite easy to show an Air Jeep of sorts.
But have no problem with the ship setting up a base station and then having vehicles either jeeps, flying craft to go further than walking distance.
On a side note. Stargate SG1 should have had a vehicle of some sort go thru the gate. Atlantis fixed this with the Gateship. and is quite usefull. So a Star Trek equevelent of a Puddle Jumper a smaller Shuttle pod sized with like a 10 person load would be nice to see. or a Trek version of a speeder, or speeder bike.

 

Why no jet packs? Individual recon jet packs would allow each person expand their search radius. Think of all the new plot lines. Now, I want Star Trek jet packs.

 

Actually, I'd argue the exact opposite. We don't call helicopters or elevators "antigravity" even though they defy gravity. For a technology to warrant this name, it is bound to actually negate gravity, in which case lifting a hovercar will involve only a minimal amount of power - say, the power of the wrists of a skinny teenager. If the power needed was the muscle power plus classical potential energy per unit of time, there'd be no point in making an antigravity machine. The actual antigravity part would appear to come for free.

After all, antigravity aboard starships never fades even when the ship is said to become powerless. Dim emergency lighting and gravity control seem to compete neck to neck for the lowest power consumption among starship systems, making even flashlight-battery-category things like cloaks and transporters appear more power-hungry.

Sounds silly. Streets consume urban space, to no practical end. Parking space would be much better arranged so that it doesn't separate houses from each other like so many moats!

I say, if we can rid ourselves of ground vehicles, streets should be the very next thing to go. Replace those with parks and arrange the houses so that they don't just loom at each other threateningly over those silly moats, but instead offer some actual views.

And sometimes a World War or three clears the air (and the ground!) very nicely...

It seems the new Argo from LDS is quite a bit more compact than the ST:NEM thing (shorter bow, no step aft of the cab and fwd of the payload platform), and might actually fit aboard the standard shuttles of the show. Or then the aerial view is misleading - but those jeeps did get down to the surface somehow.

Timo Saloniemi

 

They could have beamed them down there. Assorted TNG ships have beamed shuttles (crashed, usually) up from the surface.

Mark

 

I'll agree that the part where you change the altitude of a AntiGrav vessel is relatively trivial.
But generating the beam itself seems to be the expensive energy intensive process that we can't do at the moment.

They can easily make small internal batteries of sorts that lets the Anti-Grav systems run autonomously for a while before the gradually slow down and diminish the effects of gravity on it's own down to zero once the constant source of energy is cut off and internal batteries are completely drained.

I like my moats =D. I like my streets and I like to drive on them =D.

And we can make "Nicer Streets" in the future, up to my specs =D.

 

Or then it's cheap and energy-nonintensive, much like lighting up the world with LEDs is, even though we couldn't do that a couple of years ago.

Wes did it with his Little Graviticist's Starter Kit, after all, instead of requisitioning a temporary reallocation of warp power or anything.

Why not do that with warp drives and phasers, then, too? All this does is put the gravitics on the same line with known battery-driven stuff, such as the dim emergency lights.

OTOH, absent other information, we might just as well declare that gravitics require exactly zero power. Turn on the machine to set gravity to one gee, then turn off the machine and gravity remains at one gee until further notice...

...I'm sure a karting rink could be arranged somewhere.

Very true. The pairing of two shuttles with two jeeps is suggestive, is all. Why bring the shuttles along at all?

But if one stows an Argo in there, there's rather little room for the boxes containing the ansible parts...

(The really interesting bit treknologically is how the barracks got down there. Do they prefer to beam those down whole, or in snap-tite components, or fly the components down inside shuttles, or land the barracks whole using some sort of a tug or parachute or landing-grav arrangement? How did Kirk put Khan's hut down on the surface of CAV?)

Timo Saloniemi

 

Or the amount of available power to a teenage kid's starter kit is much higher than what we have now.

In the VOY episode "Warhead". The Druoda Torpedo is powerd by a "Condensed Energy Matrix" which is glorified wording for Super Dense & Efficient Battery that allows a Torpedo to travel up to 80 ly at warp with extra power for Shielding, Weapons, AI, Tractor Beams, and a large Anti-Matter warhead.

The Druoda obviously have the "Condensed Energy Matrix" like batteries that were in such demand that the Merchant stated that it could "Power an entire Fleet of ships". How much of that was sales talk & exaggeration, but flying a Torpedo 80 ly with all those other features is no joke. That's a good amount of power necessary.

Hand Phasers already are powered by Sarium Krellide Batteries.

As to why Vessel mounted Phasers don't have a "Battery Backup", I dunno, tell that to the designers. I know I would have a "Condense Energy Matrix" Battery backup for each emitter.

Even absent of other information, I don't believe in violating the laws of physics. Everything has an energy cost. No matter how big or small. You don't get to violate the laws of physics just because of fiction. That's piss poor writing & Sci-Fi and you know it.

 

Umm, no? Antigravity violates everything we think we know about physics, and nevertheless is part and parcel of Trek. We're simply dead wrong in the Trek universe. And probably in ours, too, given the precedent: physics is all about fundamental misconceptions and proper humility in front of those.

There would be nothing even mildly surprising about Trek gravity control being based on locally resetting the universe. We know squat about gravity today, but the one thing we are slowly coming to appreciate is that it has nothing at all to do with traditional classical physics, cannot be explained with those, and probably (again given the precedent) can be played with if one day we actually learn to understand even some of its basics.

There is no energy cost on parking an elevator on the 47th floor, even if energy may be involved in getting 'er there. Antigravity probably cheats even with that energy - but deciding that the parking carries zero cost is an even less exotic an assumption.

Timo Saloniemi

 

Well in TWOK, the Enterprise was on battery backup and had a few shots of Phasers, probably becasue they charged weapons before the power outage.
Looking up in Mem Alpha theres plenty of entries on anti gravity things, Air Cars, Skimmers, Hoppers, there are even Spock's Boots from ST V that undoutably have anti grav. Hell Archer's toy ship had a anti grav Core in the early 22nd. then there's the speeder bike cop from ST 09.

 

Whether it takes no energy to maintain or a low level of energy to sustain, I think that some sort of resetting of the gravitation constant in a magic material is one nice way to explain the stable artificial gravity were see on spaceships, space stations up to installations on asteroids/moons/planets either too small or too big to give one g. The outside surfaces of a ship's hull are set at zero g (or slightly negative g, if possible, so stuff doesn't adhere to the hull). (At high repulsive settings, could this be the ship's deflector screens?) All the internal decks are set at one g for humans, and gravity is locally adjustable (as seen in the environmental chamber for example where the inside chamber walls can be set to variable g's). TAS implied both that smaller ship areas like the bridge can be shut off, and a single gravity control computer when the entire ship had no gravity:

Side Note: The gravity control computer is in the computer bay located on the Engineering Deck, "down there". Perhaps the gravity systems on most of the ship are only designed for on/off control, and when on, only one g is hard coded into the gravity materials to prevent harm to the crew. It also looks like the computer bay is adjacent to the engineering core room.

 

With some of these, we could argue they merely had classic Newtonian lift, not antigravity. But Spock's rocket boots would have pulped the user, or ripped his feet or legs off his body, in the deceleration that saved Kirk from hitting the ground - unless there was control of inertia built in, which makes these boots "real" gravity tech in the Trek sense.

Simply flying does not mean one is ignoring gravity, merely that one is defying it. Perhaps there are tradeoffs and some flying things do it with thrust, some with turning off gravity. But turning off gravity isn't the exact same thing as turning off inertia: Spock wasn't blown away by a breeze, or by bumping into a mosquito. There appear to be nuances to gravity control in basically every piece of treknology that hints at its presence.

If tech has nuances, we might argue it is mature. That is, we don't need to assume that only mighty starships can have it, and we don't even have to assume that only the military is entitled to flying boots; civilian hovercars might be common enough, and there would be market niches of all sorts.

Timo Saloniemi

 

well, if you remember the book/movie First men in the Moon, you had a ship that was painted with Cavorite?? and it Cancelled gravity.
But, unlike Star wars, trek, etc. if you cancel gravity on a planet you are SHOT off the world at a 1000mph at the equator since this planet is Spinning at a 1000mph! that and moving through space. So if you canceled gravity there are repercussions!

so the act of floating requires some fancy maths of not totally cancelling gravity.

 

I guess "safety controls" can be overridden. From Enterprise, "In A Mirror, Darkly (Part 2)", on the Defiant:

So, instead of a gravity control computer, gravity is controlled by through the environmental controls on each deck, and can vary gravity in sections of each deck.