You would think that several hundred years after seatbelts were made mandatory, these fools would strap themselves down during a battle!! Why would they be so stupie??
They have inertial dampers that are supposed to compensate for FTL acceleration. It however doesn’t handle battle shakes.
What I want to know is why simple control panels are fed with heavy currents. Nothing like using a simple computer and have it blow up in your face just because the Romulans landed a good phaser blast. :D:D
Because seatbelts are for earth-bound wusses! You think Kirk uses a seatbelt on earth? Or Janeway? I don’t think so!
Prepare for warp speed. Set coordinates for the MPSIMS system; 110 mark 50.
Engage.
What I NEVER could get was why one good hit would knock out all weapons and propulsion. Even on ocean-going warships today these are designed to be as protected from attack as possible. You’d think hundreds of years from now they’d still know enough to do this with spaceships?
Oh, please. Once you start questioning the logic and science in Star Trek, you can go on forever.
Some questions:
Why, when two ships meet, are they always both right-side up?
How is it all the aliens are interfertile? (actually, they did try to answer that in one STTNG episode – much too late, though).
Why use the hand phaser? They never do any good.
Why is it no one ever placed into the brig is there when the episode ends? (Though one STTNG did have the villain there at the end).
Why not just use bars on the brig instead of those stupid lights?
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
I once amused myself by postulating “What if Star Trek had been produced in the 18th century?” McCoy would be reporting on how many crewmen were down with scurvy, the crew would eat hardtack and salt pork, and the phasers would fire broadsides out the sides of the ship.
Actually, they are both always up-side-down.
OK, what about the economic implications of the replicator? Not to mention the moral issues.
Why do they have shipyards? Wouldn’t giant replicators make more sense? “Computer. Enterprise, Mark E, Hot” Brrrrrrp…here’s your new ship! Replicators are rare and expensive? Uhhhh…why not use your replicators to make more replicators? And while we’re at it, why bother training a crew…why not just replicate ships with trained crew inside already? If you can transport humans, you can replicate humans. Why bother making anything?
Ah, Dude, that’s what it was all about. Roddenberry (sp?) called it not only “Wagon Train To The Stars” but refered to Kirk as Horatio Hornblower.
I’m still trying to figure out how the ship could take damage before the shields are completely depleted.
I’m also still wondering how a stinkin’ shuttle could prove to be a threat to the Enterprise.
Finally, I’m still wondering how people could possibly think that the Enterprise could beat a Star Destroyer in a fight. 
When battles go hand-to hand, Worf and others use the Federation five moves of doom: block, punch to stomach, elbow, open-hand to face, and side flip. Only Captain Kirk fights like, well, he’s in a fight.
Oh yes, with the patented Kirk double-handed blow.
And I’m with Spoofe on the shield question. And the comparison question.
But back to the OP… why don’t federation ships have all crew sitting down? Especially where the decisions are made and crew need to be fresh and not fatigued. How long are their shifts anyway?
Yes, Federation ships are monuments of inefficiency. So much energy and so many resources gone over for strictly aesthetic (and performance-reducing) details. For example, rather than give the ships a strong hull, they make ‘em look like this ultra-bizarre “artsy-fartsy” hunks o’ junk, which, in turn, requires them to drain precious energy from the reactor core by necessitating a “structural integrity field” so the ship wouldn’t while making maneuvers.
Bah, I say! Bah, humbug, to the Federation!
They’re too big. It’s cheaper energy-wise to replicate the parts and assemble them.
For the same reason you can’t transport a human with a cargo transporter: resolution isn’t high enough.
matt_mcl said:
"They’re too big. It’s cheaper energy-wise to replicate the parts and assemble them."
and:
"For the same reason you can’t transport a human with a cargo transporter: resolution isn’t high enough."
No, I’m not having that! The Federation has all the energy it needs and them some. They regard fusion as obselete, synthesize antimatter as a fuel and maintain a vast fleet of spaceships for no better reason than curiosity.
The holodeck, replicators and transporters all use the same technology. There’s no reason why you can’t make a high resolution replicator, just as there are high resolution transporters for people. In fact, Riker was duplicated in a transporter accident, implying all you’d have to do is modify a transporter.
Nor would you have to make a replicator bigger than the ship you were trying to construct - replicate it bit by bit and transport the pieces into place with subatomic precision.
Star Trek is indefensible in terms of scientific accuracy or even consistency from episode to episode. It’s good for drinking games though!
It’s not designed to be completely logical, just entertaining. And it is.
Why are they always running around everywhere just transport.
If you are in a transporter, you are disasembled and then reassembled. How do you still have your memory? Is it even still you ar a copy of you?
JohnLarrigan we think alike . Would teleportation be a form of mass murder? .
I don’t just mean the fact of FTL travel itself, which astrophysicists tell us is impossible anyway, blowing the
whole basic premise to smithereens. Not that I could imagine a ST type-show without FTL travel: for practical reasons of plot the characters have to be able to get from
one place to another within their lifetimes.
But there were quite a few others. For instance, in one episode a sound focusing device is said to magnify the
volume to the order of “One to the fourth power” (=1, of course). In “Amok Time” we have the Vulcan ruler’s ridiculous third person conjugations with the pronoun ‘Thee’, as in ‘Thee speaks’ (should be Thou speakest),
in still another we have parallel evolution of Chicago gangsters of the 1920’s, and on and on.
I think in general the writers probably didn’t have time
to ferret out the correct facts or usages, under the pressure of producing a weekly series. But regardless I loved, and still do love, ST/TOS.