# Star Trek Tech Questions **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [December 19, 2009, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-tech-questions/521889 "2009-12-19T21:26:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2009, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-tech-questions/521889/21 "2009-12-20T13:16:44Z")
Here’s something I’ve always wondered about: Would you really be shaken around when your ship is struck by a phaser blast, when the artificial gravity is relative to the ship itself? ---
**Author:** ![Intergalactic\_Gladiator](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/intergalactic_gladiator/32/112_2.png) [@Intergalactic\_Gladiator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Intergalactic_Gladiator)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2009, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-tech-questions/521889/22 "2009-12-20T13:36:36Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > and the inertial dampeners conveniently going offline. The inertial dampeners, they canna take no more! ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2009, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-tech-questions/521889/23 "2009-12-20T13:57:49Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > They did it other times as well. Remember Kirk ordering the Enterprise “down” when Khan was chasing them in the nebula. He even comments on Khan’s “two-dimensional” thinking. Funny, this was EXACTLY the stupidity that I was thinking of as what you should NOT do in three dimensions!!! :smack: Kirk goes down, yes. Then he comes back “up” and, while on the same “level” as the other ship, blasts it from behind. Why? Why not just shoot up at it from below as it passes overhead?? Kirk’s own thinking is almost as two-dimensional as Khan’s. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2009, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-tech-questions/521889/24 "2009-12-20T14:57:26Z")
Almost. 😃 Of course, the real reason is that the writers are hacks and/or the producers are idiots and/or the average viewer is a moron. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2009, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-tech-questions/521889/25 "2009-12-20T15:12:54Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Why not just shoot up at it from below as it passes overhead?? Kirk’s own thinking is almost as two-dimensional as Khan’s. :smack: Similarly ships almost always face off with the same pitch and roll and never drift (unless all power is lost). I assume it’s because they don’t want to confuse or disorient the viewer. Or it’s their own lack of imagination 🙂 > [@BigT](#): > > and the inertial dampeners conveniently going offline. Similar the holodeck safeties are rather easy to disable. It’s also easy to re-route holodeck power, or whatever, so that it can’t simply be turned off. ---
**Author:** ![garygnu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garygnu/32/2924_2.png) [@garygnu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/garygnu)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2009, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-tech-questions/521889/26 "2009-12-20T16:39:11Z")
> [@GuanoLad](#): > > …Would you really be shaken around when your ship is struck by a phaser blast, when the artificial gravity is relative to the ship itself? If the ship shook, you’d notice. It’s inertia, not gravity. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2009, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-tech-questions/521889/27 "2009-12-20T17:16:34Z")
> [@garygnu](#): > > If the ship shook, you’d notice. It’s inertia, not gravity. But by that token, shouldn’t the crew be thrown backwards whenever the ship accelerates under impulse? ---
**Author:** ![garygnu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garygnu/32/2924_2.png) [@garygnu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/garygnu)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2009, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-tech-questions/521889/28 "2009-12-20T17:43:41Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > But by that token, shouldn’t the crew be thrown backwards whenever the ship accelerates under impulse? There’s some handwaving for that, but it’s an expected movement that can be compensated for. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2009, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-tech-questions/521889/29 "2009-12-20T21:32:53Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > But by that token, shouldn’t the crew be thrown backwards whenever the ship accelerates under impulse? That would be the inertial dampeners mentioned upthread. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2009, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-tech-questions/521889/30 "2009-12-20T22:16:08Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > The insistence upon maintaining the concept of “up” and “down” during movement in space is, of course, completely silly. It’s not that silly when the species that built the ships evolved under gravity and then fitted their ships with artificial gravity. Are they supposed to fasten chairs and consoles to the walls & ceilings and turn the gravity off? ---
**Author:** ![Picard\_Kills\_Kirk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/dec6dc/32.png) [@Picard\_Kills\_Kirk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Picard_Kills_Kirk)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2009, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-tech-questions/521889/31 "2009-12-20T23:32:18Z")
I always thought the ships would just smash into each other until one lost their shields. The other one would just plow through until their shields fell, and be destroyed also. Isn’t this what happened to Kirk Sr. did in the latest movie? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-tech-questions/521889/32 "2009-12-21T00:36:04Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Kirk goes down, yes. Then he comes back “up” and, while on the same “level” as the other ship, blasts it from behind. Why? Why not just shoot up at it from below as it passes overhead?? Maybe the rear of the ship is the most vulnerable, and least well armed? Besides; it was more dramatic that way IMHO; I give it a pass due to artistic license. ---
**Author:** ![brossa](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brossa/32/3040_2.png) [@brossa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brossa)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-tech-questions/521889/33 "2009-12-21T01:32:21Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Kirk goes down, yes. Then he comes back “up” and, while on the same “level” as the other ship, blasts it from behind. Why? Why not just shoot up at it from below as it passes overhead?? Kirk’s own thinking is almost as two-dimensional as Khan’s. :smack: Any naval captain worth his salt knows that a good [stern rake](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raking_fire) wreaks the most havoc on the enemy vessel. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-tech-questions/521889/34 "2009-12-21T02:48:51Z")
> [@brossa](#): > > Any naval captain worth his salt knows that a good [stern rake](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raking_fire) wreaks the most havoc on the enemy vessel. I recall mumbling something about that the first time I saw TWOK. They did rake a warp nacelle in addition to the bridge, but your link points out that a rake is more difficult to aim than a broadside. “I spit my last breath at Thee!” Man, that was a good movie, morons or not. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-tech-questions/521889/35 "2009-12-21T02:57:13Z")
Another stupidity. Why is the bridge of the Enterprise shown as being on the top deck of the saucer section, instead of buried safely much deeper in the ship? I mean, they’re not looking out actual windows, but at displays, so there’s no need to be that vulnerable. ---
**Author:** ![Intergalactic\_Gladiator](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/intergalactic_gladiator/32/112_2.png) [@Intergalactic\_Gladiator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Intergalactic_Gladiator)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-tech-questions/521889/36 "2009-12-21T03:02:50Z")
I remember having a TOS tech manual that had the bridge facing about 30 degrees in one direction instead of pointing straigh forward. Anyone remember that? why would anyone do that on a ship? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-tech-questions/521889/37 "2009-12-21T03:45:02Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > Another stupidity. Why is the bridge of the Enterprise shown as being on the top deck of the saucer section, instead of buried safely much deeper in the ship? I mean, they’re not looking out actual windows, but at displays, so there’s no need to be that vulnerable. They do have windows on top. But as I recall, the bridge was modular and designed to be capable of being swapped out. But yes; putting it far inside would be a much better design. ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-tech-questions/521889/38 "2009-12-21T03:47:43Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > Another stupidity. Why is the bridge of the Enterprise shown as being on the top deck of the saucer section, instead of buried safely much deeper in the ship? I mean, they’re not looking out actual windows, but at displays, so there’s no need to be that vulnerable. Seems to me that if ships can launch antimatter torpedoes at each other, by the time the shields are down it won’t matter if you’re a bulb on the surface or ensconced deep inside the ship - you’re dead. Of course the ST writers don’t follow this consistently; we sometimes see chunks flying off ships with the rest mostly intact. The writers just seem to have a problem with the _scale_ of space and the energies involved. As another example, the ramming in _Nemesis_ was far too effective; the ships weren’t moving that fast and the hulls just buckled. You’d expect that substances that can take plasma torpedoes and laser beams would be more resilient. ---
**Author:** ![dzeiger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/46a35a/32.png) [@dzeiger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dzeiger)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-tech-questions/521889/39 "2009-12-21T06:04:28Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Funny, this was EXACTLY the stupidity that I was thinking of as what you should NOT do in three dimensions!!! :smack: > > Kirk goes down, yes. Then he comes back “up” and, while on the same “level” as the other ship, blasts it from behind. Why? Why not just shoot up at it from below as it passes overhead?? Kirk’s own thinking is almost as two-dimensional as Khan’s. :smack: IIRC, the photon torpedo tubes were mounted below the saucer dish, so that the saucer would block upwards fire. ---
**Author:** ![Uosdwis\_R.Dewoh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Uosdwis\_R.Dewoh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uosdwis_R.Dewoh)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-tech-questions/521889/40 "2009-12-21T06:09:52Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > They do have windows on top. But as I recall, the bridge was modular and designed to be capable of being swapped out. But yes; putting it far inside would be a much better design. The _Enterprise-D_ did have a combat bridge buried deep inside the main hull, but was rarely used for some reason. I think the real life reason was to save money. They didn’t want to show the removal of the saucer section every time the Enterprise went to combat. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-tech-questions/521889.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-tech-questions/521889.md?page=3)