Blast doors vs. forcefields

[Darth Wong]

There have been aircraft with only one engine.

And if that engine fails, they still have a chance to land on aerodynamic glide.

Redundant power suplies and backup 'hologram generators' would make things better. Its also possible, at least with star trek science, that an 'energy field' could be developed which would remain for a while after losing power.

Nonsense; every forcefield in Trek history has gone down instantly without power.

And failing that, you could have an inner hull made of something extremely light, or the crew could wear space suits (not that that seems likely for trek, but there we go).

What the fuck is the point of even having a ship if it's just a holographic projection around a power core? Why not just have the power core flying through space, since it's a much smaller target?

You're trying way too hard to rationalize an incredibly stupid idea that was originally raised in order to make a point about forcefields being a bad idea for mission-critical applications. Like a Microsoft software writer, you're thinking in terms of feature-bloat, not stability or security.

[Howedar]

You're arguing a different thread. I was talking specifically of robot-controlled forcefield-generated ships. Someone had earlier proposed robot-controlled ships as the solution to the problem of human vulnerability to temporary forcefield cessation.

Actually Mike, near as I can tell you were the first to mention robot ships, in order to defeat Prozac the Robert's bullshit.

As for one-engined aircraft, it is actually rare for an engine failure to result in the loss of the aircraft. Large aircraft fly high enough that they can glide for forever: a typical glide ratio for a large airplane is no less than 8:1, meaning that if the aircraft is flying even at only 10,000 feet, it can glide for no less than 15 miles! Smaller aircraft, though lower-flying, can also land at much slower speeds. If you're flying around in a Cessna or something, any given farmer's field (let alone an obstruction-free road) will make a perfectly decent landing strip. Hell, I've taken off and landed on grass strips before, it's no big deal.

[Slartibartfast]

Forcefields do have a few advantages. They can be activated much faster, compared to blast doors taking time to close.

Not so in Star Wars, where we have seen heavy doors that close nearly instantly (like the scene where Luke and Han disguise as stormtroopers).

So Forcefields would be used first to seal off an area, then blast doors would take over the strain.

See above.

[Jalinth]

In space, you'd want some duplication (good old redundancy) - so force fields backed up by doors are good. Especially if the doors in question are either manual or are not the "superfast" type shown by Star Wars (this is Trek after all - limits to their technology). Forcefields snape on first, then the doors take over. Of course, we'd have to improve the whole "structural containment fields" idea since no ship I'd ship out on would be this unstable unless it is a prototype. (in which case, I'd be part of the test crew and have my life insurance paid up)

The whole TPM scene with the forcefields looked very odd. Why would anyone have forcefields that went on and off at regular intervals? No real security or other function that I can think off except for being a plot device

[Howedar]

Perhaps a form of air circulation, though a rather silly one.

[Howedar]

No scratch that, it wouldn't work. Never mind.

[Gandalf]

The whole TPM scene with the forcefields looked very odd. Why would anyone have forcefields that went on and off at regular intervals? No real security or other function that I can think off except for being a plot device

I always assumed the force fields were containing radiation from in that room. And thr force fields opening/closing was a form of venting.

[Sarevok]

There have been aircraft with only one engine.

But aircraft dont plummet to ground if that engine fails. They can glide.

Redundant power suplies and backup 'hologram generators' would make things better.

All of which would take up valuable space and tonnage.

Its also possible, at least with star trek science, that an 'energy field' could be developed which would remain for a while after losing power.

Star Trek forcfield instanly fail after they lose power.

[Coalition]

Forcefields do have a few advantages. They can be activated much faster, compared to blast doors taking time to close.

They can also be deactivated much faster and easier.

Also, forcefields can be hidden in the walls, while blast doors would have recessed areas where they can spring out from.

Small projector devices = fragility.

Forcefields can also be computer controlled for shape, allowing people to program a computer with the necessary field 'geometry', and change the flat field protecting them into a set of stairs to get to safety.

Great idea; entrust the very shape of your artificial world to software.

Blast doors would leave the person stuck. This was used in a DS9 episode, with Dax.

You'll need to present more concrete evidence than "a DS9 episode" in order to show why any sane person would go with forcefields in a mission-critical application.

So Forcefields would be used first to seal off an area, then blast doors would take over the strain.

A fine idea as long as the forcefields are not relied upon excessively.

Both technologies have their uses.

Of course both technologies have their uses. But if you're going to pick one, I'd much rather be behind a blast door than a forcefield.

Pretty much all of the above is due to my lack of communications.

For the forcefields being shut down much faster, I agree. I was visualizing Force fields being activated first, with a blast door sealing behind them. he force fields provide initial protection/atmosphere containment, and the blast doors seal the place closed. Of course, they would be on different circuits. After the blast doors seal, the fields would likely be deactivated, to save power.

For speed of forcefields vs blast doors, in ANH, I remember that fast closing door behind Luke & Leia (in front of the bottomless pit), and the slow blast doors that han dived through as they were closing. The first seemed more like a door to a room, and the second was an actual blast door. Han and Chewie's little exit there would not have happened if a solid screen had been present immediately.

For force fields hidden in the walls, the key advantage is the surprise and delay factor. I.e. a group of enemies charging down a hall, and suddenly half the team gets cut off due to a rapid force field. That allows the defenders to deal with a few at the head of the column, while the remainder burns through the field. A few meters later, the defenders repeat the trick. Or, for escaping prisoners. They may break through the fields, but each time will slow them down. The best part is that they are not expecting it. The force fields are transparent after actviation, while blast doors are rather obvious (unless you put a small cloak on them, from Invisible Man episode - hint "Thunk").

Then again, instead of force fields to deal with intruders, you could use randomized gravity strengths and vectors in a hallway, combined with strobing lights. Lots of fun when intruders never know when gravity will change to, or where, plus the lights causing seizures in their brain.

For the DS9 episode, where the force fields could be adjusted by changing Geometry, the episode was "Rejoined", from the 4th season (http://ds9encyc lopedia.0catch.com/epguide/rejoined.htm). Dax had a friend on the far side of a fire. She changed the field so she could walk above the fire, and rescue her friend. I admit this was an emergency situation, and not a normal response. (plus its more polite than asking you to go over all DS9 episode to spot the exact scene)

The key with the adjustable field, is in emergency situations (or prisoner handling, where there are 2 prisoners in one cell), is that it allows you to get in and handle one at a time. Of course, Imperial response would be easier (stun both through the door, and sort out with interrogation).

I guess my point was that both are useful, in their areas. Forcefields for speed, and blast doors for reliability.

Conceded on the blast doors being more reliable.

(Talkative, aren't I)

[Slartibartfast]

The whole TPM scene with the forcefields looked very odd. Why would anyone have forcefields that went on and off at regular intervals? No real security or other function that I can think off except for being a plot device

"Whoever wrote this episode should be shot!"

Cookie for the reference.

[Techno_Union]

Blast doors can be hidden. In The Last Command (Thrawn Trilogy), blast doors were hidden in Lea's palace stateroom doors. They were activated by large pounding on the doors or blasters being fired at them. So blastdoors can be hidden as well as forcefields. But the question is, with full power to both of them, which one is stronger? I would go for the blastdoors, a foot thick is pretty damn good.

[Howedar]

The whole TPM scene with the forcefields looked very odd. Why would anyone have forcefields that went on and off at regular intervals? No real security or other function that I can think off except for being a plot device

"Whoever wrote this episode should be shot!"

Cookie for the reference.

Galaxy Quest, of course.

[General Zod]

Blast doors can be hidden. In The Last Command (Thrawn Trilogy), blast doors were hidden in Lea's palace stateroom doors. They were activated by large pounding on the doors or blasters being fired at them. So blastdoors can be hidden as well as forcefields. But the question is, with full power to both of them, which one is stronger? I would go for the blastdoors, a foot thick is pretty damn good.

another advantage of blastdoors over shields. blastdoors don't have to worry about frequencies to keep out hostiles.

[wautd]

A lightsabre can cut trough a blastdoor but how would it perform with a forcefield?

[Stark]

It could destroy the emitters, disable its power cabling (obviously outside the shielded area ) or short it out totally. In ST, who knows HOW it'd defeat the forcefield; only know that it will.

[Sarevok]

A blast door would be highly effective against kinetic energy attacks unlike forcefields. The energy from a kinetic attack would be transmitted to the forcefield generator. A sufficiently powerful blast such as a sabot round could rip apart the forcefield generator and bring down the forcefield.

[FOG3]

To bad the Imperials don't don't use shields to compartmentalize explosions. For the hangar bays at least. Plus the added benefit:

The Rebels after much effort managed to obtain a Imperial Shuttle. Masquerading as part of our supply convoy they planted a Nuclear bomb in our hold.

Bomb goes off. No real noticeable effect to ship except some debris being ejected from hangar. The Rebels attempt to flee only to have their ship disabled.


Definitely Blast Doors, but forcefields have their uses.

[Tribun]

To bad the Imperials don't don't use shields to compartmentalize explosions. For the hangar bays at least. Plus the added benefit:

The Rebels after much effort managed to obtain a Imperial Shuttle. Masquerading as part of our supply convoy they planted a Nuclear bomb in our hold.

Bomb goes off. No real noticeable effect to ship except some debris being ejected from hangar. The Rebels attempt to flee only to have their ship disabled.


Definitely Blast Doors, but forcefields have their uses.

You have played "X-Wing" and remember the end of the ISD "Invincible"? (The name is not very fitting...)

[FOG3]

Yes.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

You have played "X-Wing" and remember the end of the ISD "Invincible"? (The name is not very fitting...)

Sadly, the Invincible in the X-Wing novel Wraith Squadron went down to a similarly stupid end.

[Stark]

Hey, can I play 'ST internal forcefields can contain major explosions' too?? I bet they can contain the explosion from ANY size of bomb as well! Even a NUKE inside a ST ship is useless, because they'll just use forcefields!1! Weeeeeee!

[hvb]

You have played "X-Wing" and remember the end of the ISD "Invincible"? (The name is not very fitting...)

Sadly, the Invincible in the X-Wing novel Wraith Squadron went down to a similarly stupid end.

The latin nickname 'Invictus' was usually given as a joke too (i.e. given to someone who had suffered a defeat ), its the same tradition of sorts as when in the comics if you say it can't get worse, it will.
If you claim you cannot be defeated: you will.

[Tribun]

The bomb is laid in the hangar of the "Invicible".

[Isolder74]

And it was a BIG bomb. Unless they would have alreaqdy known about the plot there is no way they could have stopped other that ejecting the thing or stopping the shuttle from landing. No Blast door or force field would have been able to save the ship!

[CaptJodan]

It could destroy the emitters, disable its power cabling (obviously outside the shielded area ) or short it out totally. In ST, who knows HOW it'd defeat the forcefield; only know that it will.

In TNGs "Power Play" Commander Data simply needed to swing his arm at the wall, bust it open, and use his body to disrupt the power flow overloading or disabling the forcefield. Needless to say, a phaser, let alone a blaster, would probably be sufficant to take down a forcefield with little trouble. Maybe that's why they didn't use the worthless things in ST:N.