# Why no seat belts on Star Trek? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [February 15, 2005, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-seat-belts-on-star-trek/290265 "2005-02-15T21:59:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![terentii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terentii/32/212_2.png) [@terentii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/terentii)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-seat-belts-on-star-trek/290265/81 "2014-03-04T14:47:24Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > There’s also an Auxiliary Control Center on Kirk’s _Enterprise_, and a Battle Bridge on Picard’s: [Battle bridge | Memory Alpha | Fandom](http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Battle_bridge) Correct, but the “Battle Bridge” was intended for use only after saucer separation (giving the children, et al, a chance to “get away”). I still think it would be a futile gesture. Everyone on board the saucer would either (a) be blown to smithereens by any hostile vessel, (b) be taken prisoner and used for experiments or sold as slaves throughout the Galaxy, or (c) eventually suffocate in the icy cold of space. Evidence of just how futile it would be is that the “Battle Bridge” was seldom even mentioned after the awful first season. ---
**Author:** ![terentii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terentii/32/212_2.png) [@terentii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/terentii)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-seat-belts-on-star-trek/290265/82 "2014-03-04T14:54:50Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > The Okudas’ _ST Encyclopedia_ stated that Bridge modules can be relatively easily swapped out (to explain why they sometimes appear different, even for two ships of the same class) for repairs and upgrades. This actually makes a great deal of sense, since even in _ **TOS** _, _everything_ was modulized, as was shown in the second pilot. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-seat-belts-on-star-trek/290265/83 "2014-03-04T17:02:23Z")
> [@terentii](#): > > Correct, but the “Battle Bridge” was intended for use only after saucer separation (giving the children, et al, a chance to “get away”). I still think it would be a futile gesture. Everyone on board the saucer would either (a) be blown to smithereens by any hostile vessel, (b) be taken prisoner and used for experiments or sold as slaves throughout the Galaxy, or (c) eventually suffocate in the icy cold of space. > > Evidence of just how futile it would be is that the “Battle Bridge” was seldom even mentioned after the awful first season. Saucer separation was not something done during battle, but something done because the warp core seemed to get breached every week or so. (In TOS the transporters go out, in TNG it is the warp core - they seem to have regressed.) The secondary bridge existed in TOS time, that is where Kirk ran Decker’s ship in “The Doomsday Machine.” Redundancy is quite necessary in this kind of situation, though I don’t think you could fit much of the bridge crew in there. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-seat-belts-on-star-trek/290265/84 "2014-03-04T17:20:24Z")
Well, in regards to the bridge location, it seems to me that the firepower of the future spaceships is probably pretty impressive. The Memory-Alpha wikipage on photon torpedos describes many types of power yields. It even states that an unshielded Ent-D could be destroyed by firing it’s own torpedos at a target “too close”. [Photon torpedo | Memory Alpha | Fandom](http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Photon_torpedo) Anyway, it probably doesn’t matter _where_ you stick the bridge in terms of weapons vulnerability. Even in the center of the secondary hull, a fully powered weapon is going to blow through a dozen decks with ease, unless you make your ship out of neutronium. ---
**Author:** ![terentii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terentii/32/212_2.png) [@terentii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/terentii)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-seat-belts-on-star-trek/290265/85 "2014-03-04T17:24:09Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Saucer separation was not something done during battle, but something done because the warp core seemed to get breached every week or so. (In TOS the transporters go out, in TNG it is the warp core - they seem to have regressed.) > > The secondary bridge existed in TOS time, that is where Kirk ran Decker’s ship in “The Doomsday Machine.” Redundancy is quite necessary in this kind of situation, though I don’t think you could fit much of the bridge crew in there. Excuse me? Right off the top of my head, I can remember the episodes where Picard ordered Worf to take the saucer to “safety” before engaging another ship; Geordi was (God knows why!) left in command, and the first thing he did was to send the saucer off and then turn around and go back to give battle (why not just keep running?); and Worf told a visitor that without the saucer, the _Enterprise_ was a “formidable” warship. Seems to me also that it was _Voyager_ that was always in imminent danger of a warp core breach. How many times did this actually happen on _ **TNG** _? Not only did Kirk use Auxiliary Control in “The Doomsday Machine,” intruders could use it (or Engineering) to take control of the ship, like the space hippies did (if I remember correctly). ---
**Author:** ![terentii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terentii/32/212_2.png) [@terentii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/terentii)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-seat-belts-on-star-trek/290265/86 "2014-03-04T17:31:42Z")
“Combat Information Center” sounds a helluva lot more impressive than “Battle Bridge,” too. ---
**Author:** ![harmonicamoon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/65b543/32.png) [@harmonicamoon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/harmonicamoon)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-seat-belts-on-star-trek/290265/87 "2014-03-04T17:53:07Z")
Back to seat belts. So, when the Enterprise goes into warp drive, wouldn’t the g force throw unrestrained crew members all around the ship? ---
**Author:** ![terentii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terentii/32/212_2.png) [@terentii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/terentii)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-seat-belts-on-star-trek/290265/88 "2014-03-04T18:04:17Z")
> [@harmonicamoon](#): > > Back to seat belts. So, when the Enterprise goes into warp drive, wouldn’t the g force throw unrestrained crew members all around the ship? Without some kind of inertial dampening, yes. I’ve always thought such a capacity would be an integral part of any drive system, along with artificial gravity. Being “thrown around” is an understatement. Most likely, you’d be reduced to something resembling strawberry jam on the walls (assuming\* they’d\* be left intact). ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-seat-belts-on-star-trek/290265/89 "2014-03-04T18:43:48Z")
“Chunky salsa” was the preferred term among ST:TNG production staff. ---
**Author:** ![terentii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terentii/32/212_2.png) [@terentii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/terentii)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-seat-belts-on-star-trek/290265/90 "2014-03-04T18:47:12Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > “Chunky salsa” was the preferred term among ST:TNG production staff. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-seat-belts-on-star-trek/290265/91 "2014-03-04T19:42:24Z")
> [@harmonicamoon](#): > > Back to seat belts. So, when the Enterprise goes into warp drive, wouldn’t the g force throw unrestrained crew members all around the ship? > [@terentii](#): > > Without some kind of inertial dampening, yes. I’ve always thought such a capacity would be an integral part of any drive system, along with artificial gravity. > > Being “thrown around” is an understatement. Most likely, you’d be reduced to something resembling strawberry jam on the walls (assuming\* they’d\* be left intact). I’m going to take a contrary position, here. > **[Warp drive](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Warp_drive)** > > Warp drive or warp engine was a technology that allowed space travel at faster-than-light speeds. It worked by generating warp fields to form a subspace bubble that enveloped the starship, distorting the local spacetime continuum and moving the... > [@memory alpha](#): > > Warp drive was a technology that allowed space travel at faster-than-light speeds. It worked by generating warp fields to form a subspace bubble that enveloped the starship, distorting the local spacetime continuum and moving the starship at velocities that could greatly exceed the speed of light. > **[Warp field](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Warp_field)** > > A warp field, also known as the subspace displacement field or the subspace warp field, was the means by which a warp drive propelled a starship at faster-than-light (or warp factor) speeds. Generated by field coils, usually found in nacelles, the... > [@memory alpha](#): > > The warp field, also known as a subspace field, was a subspace displacement which warps space around the vessel, allowing it to “ride” on a distortion and travel faster than the speed of light. (ENT: “Cold Front”) This had the physical effect of reducing the inertial mass of any object encompassed by the field. (TNG: “Deja Q”; DS9: “Emissary”) There’s no indication in these (admittedly brief) descriptions here that the hull of the ship itself experiences G-forces of any kind. Many screenshots in the various series show that the warp field does not touch the hull, but indeed encloses a volumn larger than the ship generating it. In relative terms, the ship is “at rest” with everything else enclosed within the same warp field. At the bottom of the “warp field” entry is a non-canon explanation/theory on how motion is granted to the whole. (“Layers” of fields within the same warp bubble are manipulated, and act against each other, resulting in motion in the desired direction.) Unintended/uncontrolled collapse of the warp field is probably a “bad thing”. ---
**Author:** ![terentii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terentii/32/212_2.png) [@terentii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/terentii)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-seat-belts-on-star-trek/290265/92 "2014-03-04T20:01:27Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > There’s no indication in these (admittedly brief) descriptions here that the hull of the ship itself experiences G-forces of any kind. Okay … what happens when the ship goes to impulse power? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![terentii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terentii/32/212_2.png) [@terentii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/terentii)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-seat-belts-on-star-trek/290265/93 "2014-03-04T20:04:59Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > There’s no indication in these (admittedly brief) descriptions here that the hull of the ship itself experiences G-forces of any kind. > > Many screenshots in the various series show that the warp field does not touch the hull, but indeed encloses a volumn larger than the ship generating it. > > In relative terms, the ship is “at rest” with everything else enclosed within the same warp field. Which, uhm, means that inertial dampening is an integral capacity of a warp drive … just like I said above. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-seat-belts-on-star-trek/290265/94 "2014-03-04T21:16:55Z")
> [@terentii](#): > > Which, uhm, means that inertial dampening is an integral capacity of a warp drive … just like I said above. Hmmm. I should have looked further: > **[Inertial damping system](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Inertial_damping_system)** > > Inertial damping system, inertial dampers, or inertial dampeners, were a system used on almost all starships to counter the effects of rapid acceleration and deceleration by sustaining and absorbing the natural inertia of a vessel as it moved through... I withdraw my contrary claim. 🙂 * * * This article indicates that they are indeed used by ships for warp, as bad things happen when they don’t. Which raises a question for you math majors: What is the “G” force acceleration equivelant if the Ent-D goes from a standing start to warp 9.6 (say, 850_c_) in under 30 seconds (as seen on the pilot episode)? ---
**Author:** ![johnpost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f17d59/32.png) [@johnpost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnpost)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-seat-belts-on-star-trek/290265/95 "2014-03-04T21:33:48Z")
zombie or no when the Seaview got rocked they were thrown from side to side. do you expect the ST crew to be less. they both stared danger in the face and didn’t blink. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-seat-belts-on-star-trek/290265/96 "2014-03-04T21:51:04Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > What is the “G” force acceleration equivelant if the Ent-D goes from a standing start to warp 9.6 (say, 850_c_) in under 30 seconds (as seen on the pilot episode)? By simple math that’s 867 million gees, though presumably the warp drive can’t even work without some form of inertial damping. From the Memory Alpha [Impulse Drive](http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Impulse_drive) article: _In The Motion Picture, The Enterprise traveled at warp 0.5 from Earth to past the planet Jupiter, a distance of (at a minimum) 390,674,900 miles, in 1.8 hours, making that speed approximately equal to 97,026 kilometers per second (217,041,611 miles per hour), or roughly 1/3 light speed._ If the average speed was 1/3 c, then we might say the peak speed was 2/3 c, and that the ship took 0.9 hours to accelerate to that (and the other half to decelerate). If so, we get that the impulse drives alone can accelerate the ship at over 6100 gees. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-seat-belts-on-star-trek/290265/97 "2014-03-04T22:54:05Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > By simple math that’s 867 million gees, though presumably the warp drive can’t even work without some form of inertial damping. > > From the Memory Alpha [Impulse Drive](http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Impulse_drive) article: > _In The Motion Picture, The Enterprise traveled at warp 0.5 from Earth to past the planet Jupiter, a distance of (at a minimum) 390,674,900 miles, in 1.8 hours, making that speed approximately equal to 97,026 kilometers per second (217,041,611 miles per hour), or roughly 1/3 light speed._ > > If the average speed was 1/3 c, then we might say the peak speed was 2/3 c, and that the ship took 0.9 hours to accelerate to that (and the other half to decelerate). If so, we get that the impulse drives alone can accelerate the ship at over 6100 gees. Thanks! If you got the gravity control (or whatever) to counteract three quarters of a billion gees acceleration, it seems some of those episodes’ plots need another lookin at… 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![burpo\_the\_wonder\_mutt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/burpo_the_wonder_mutt/32/365_2.png) [@burpo\_the\_wonder\_mutt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/burpo_the_wonder_mutt)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-seat-belts-on-star-trek/290265/98 "2014-03-04T23:01:35Z")
How do you ST heavy-hitters like the re-boot concept that says the Enterprise doesn’t move at all, but all of space moves around the Enterprise? Don’t shoot the messenger!:eek: ---
**Author:** ![terentii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terentii/32/212_2.png) [@terentii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/terentii)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-seat-belts-on-star-trek/290265/99 "2014-03-04T23:14:28Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > This article indicates that they are indeed used by ships for warp, as bad things happen when they don’t. Something to consider: Logically, inertia dampening would be an inherent property of a warp drive, but judging from Trek technobabble (particularly on _ **Voyager** _) it seems to be a separate system that kicks in for both warp and impulse power. I find it particularly amusing whenever _Voyager_ comes under attack, and the shields fail and they drop out of warp, Tuvak (or Harry, or Tom) reports “Inertia dampeners are off-line!” Seems to me he’d be “chunky salsa” before he could even get the words out! ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-seat-belts-on-star-trek/290265/100 "2014-03-04T23:16:26Z")
> [@terentii](#): > > Something to consider: Logically, inertia dampening would be an inherent property of a warp drive, but judging from Trek technobabble (particularly on _ **Voyager** _) it seems to be a separate system that kicks in for both warp and impulse power. > > I find it particularly amusing whenever _Voyager_ comes under attack, and the shields fail and they drop out of warp, Tuvak (or Harry, or Tom) reports “Inertia dampeners are off-line!” Seems to me he’d be “chunky salsa” before he could even get the words out! 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-seat-belts-on-star-trek/290265.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-seat-belts-on-star-trek/290265.md?page=6)