Blast doors vs. forcefields

[Prozac the Robert]

The Fed use of "structural integrity fields" in place of massive structural members could be due to similar reasons. It seems the Feds might have (relatively speaking) power to spare whilst mass savings are critical.

This is nonsensical. The only reason mass is a big deal is due to the limits it places on acceleration. Of course, all you need to compensate for the extra mass is... more powerful engines.

Which in turn need a bigger hull, or use more antimatter or what have you. You are going to have to make tradeoffs when designing things.

[Tribun]

I have studied a bit the reliance of the Federaton on forcefields:

TOS:
-The E-Nil go no atmosphere forcefield in it's hangar, most likely because the thought of it as too dangerous.
-The same goes for the E-A and the Reliant
-There weren't many forcefields, the only two I can name the arrest cell and the magnetic field near the warp core.
-Do they use forcefields to isolate critical areas? No! Look for example at ST II, were the radiated ara was sealed of by a glass wall, that somehow blocked the radiation.
-The doors a a real problem, as far as I have seen, and thinker then later.

TNG:
-Hangars still have doors, but they are really pitiful. They almost exclusively rely on atmosphere shields now.
-I not really bothered to look, were they used forcefields in the ship now. It begins with them built into every corridor, every room! While the doors are pitiful now, and ends with relying on them for critical ship operations. (like the warp core)
-Many things are now exclusively forcefiels. Saw the "window" in ST: FC? Well, they had the same thing in TOS, but there, it was a real window, not a force field.

[The Third Man]

This is nonsensical. The only reason mass is a big deal is due to the limits it places on acceleration. Of course, all you need to compensate for the extra mass is... more powerful engines.

Not really. You cannot necessarily compensate with bigger engines - it may be easy to up the reactor output but difficult to transmit this extra power to whatever motivates ST ships. It could be that making ships bigger and more powerful runs up against limitations of the structural materials used. In both these cases using power to run a SIF and have a lighter ship would make sense.

[neoolong]

In order to visualize how stupid the use of mission-critical forcefields are, ask yourself why the Federation doesn't switch to hull-less starships, by replacing the entire hull with a huge forcefield. Hey, why not replace decks too? The whole ship can be a forcefield-hologram, and all of the crew will just walk around on forcefield-hologram decks (of course, I expect that if Rick Berman envisions a 28th century Fed ship, that's precisely what it will be like). It would be pretty fucking funny for an EMP bomb to wipe out an entire 28th century Fed fleet and instantly space all of its crews ...

In other words The Enlightment from Red Dwarf.

[Gil Hamilton]

Blast doors have another advantage. In the event of catastrophic damage of the ship, blast doors between sections isolate them from each other. Conceivably, even the lost of large sections of the ship, even the majority of the ship's sections, could be a survivable event with blast doors being in place where corridors breach bulkheads between sections, even in the event of total power loss.

[Gil Hamilton]

This is nonsensical. The only reason mass is a big deal is due to the limits it places on acceleration. Of course, all you need to compensate for the extra mass is... more powerful engines.

Which comes with technological and engineering limitations on engine and ship design. It's very easy to say that you can simply slap bigger engines on something, but actually doing it is a bit more complicated. Plus, there is the fact that it takes more fuel to push something with more mass. That means expanded fuel tanks, which are heavier themselves (not to mention more fuel means more mass). Best to build light, eh?

[Techno_Union]

Can't remember which one at the moment but either the Lancer or the Carrack cruiser had such good bulkheads and blastdoors that their crews were found alive days after the ships were destroyed due to the effectivness of the doors.

Also, lets not forget about that TNG episode where the Yamato (Galaxy Class) had some sort of virus where it lost power in random places. One of the bays lost power and the force field went off-line killing some number of people. I would MUCH rather have a foot thick armored blast door protecting me than a force field that will fail if someone blows on them.

Blast doors are, in my opinion, far more effective because they offer more than the force fields. Blast doors offer way more protection and are harder to get through. Power or no power, they will still be effective.

[Howedar]

This is nonsensical. The only reason mass is a big deal is due to the limits it places on acceleration. Of course, all you need to compensate for the extra mass is... more powerful engines.

Which comes with technological and engineering limitations on engine and ship design. It's very easy to say that you can simply slap bigger engines on something, but actually doing it is a bit more complicated. Plus, there is the fact that it takes more fuel to push something with more mass. That means expanded fuel tanks, which are heavier themselves (not to mention more fuel means more mass). Best to build light, eh?

To suggest that weight should be reduced to the point that doors are eschewed in favor of force fields is taking mass reduction to the point of silliness. I was not saying that the mass of a ship is unimportant.

Moreover, the fact that Federation propulsion technology is unchanged over a century suggests that scalability is not a serious problem.

[Prozac the Robert]

In order to visualize how stupid the use of mission-critical forcefields are, ask yourself why the Federation doesn't switch to hull-less starships, by replacing the entire hull with a huge forcefield. Hey, why not replace decks too? The whole ship can be a forcefield-hologram, and all of the crew will just walk around on forcefield-hologram decks (of course, I expect that if Rick Berman envisions a 28th century Fed ship, that's precisely what it will be like). It would be pretty fucking funny for an EMP bomb to wipe out an entire 28th century Fed fleet and instantly space all of its crews ...

Actually, if it could be done reliably it might possibly be better than a real ship. Maybe its acceleration would be a lot better, perhaps being able to remodel its hull would be an advantage. Maybe it would just be easier to produce in large numbers. Perhaps there is a limit to federation material science that prevents them getting past a certain size of ship, and they want superdreadnoughts.

Either way, if the advantage was big enough and glitches were unlikely enough it would probably be used. For example: aeroplanes crash if they lose power, airships don't. We still go with heavier than air flight aircraft though, since they have so many advantages and we have decided that they outweigh the risks.

Of course it would have to be emp proof first.

[Ender]

The Fed use of "structural integrity fields" in place of massive structural members could be due to similar reasons. It seems the Feds might have (relatively speaking) power to spare whilst mass savings are critical.

This is nonsensical. The only reason mass is a big deal is due to the limits it places on acceleration. Of course, all you need to compensate for the extra mass is... more powerful engines.

Which requires more ejecta fuel (more mass), and more power, meaning more reactor fuel (again more mass). He has a very valid point, though I'd say SIFs have more to do with the metal properties then mass

[Master of Ossus]

Forcefields are nice since they offer better controlability, and an ability to retain at least some functionality in damaged areas, but they are also fragile and unreliable. I would choose blast-doors if I had to select one or the other, but forcefields would be good to have in addition to blast doors.

[Howedar]

Which requires more ejecta fuel (more mass), and more power, meaning more reactor fuel (again more mass). He has a very valid point, though I'd say SIFs have more to do with the metal properties then mass

Going by on-the-bridge cutaways, the amount of volume of the reactor fuel and reaction mass is very small, and since we don't see blobs of neutronium flying out the back, the mass must be correspondingly low.

Of course this neglects the factor of magical subspace inertia-cancellation which makes the problem even less important.

[Darth Wong]

Either way, if the advantage was big enough and glitches were unlikely enough it would probably be used. For example: aeroplanes crash if they lose power, airships don't. We still go with heavier than air flight aircraft though, since they have so many advantages and we have decided that they outweigh the risks.

A heavier-than-air plane can afford to suffer partial loss of function (one engine of four, for example) and still fly. If some of the forcefields in this holoship fail, hundreds of people get spaced. Unless it's a robot ship, of course, in which case it will simply be hacked or EMP'd.

Of course it would have to be emp proof first.

Heh heh ...

[Gil Hamilton]

I don't see why a robotic ship would be prone to be EMP'd or hacked. Non-robotic ships are no less vulnerable to EMP than robotic ones and both can get Faraday cages around fragile electonics.

As for hacking, you've got to link to the computer first, which means being physically attached to it. That means capturing it and somehow preventing it's internal security from scuttling the ship to evade capture.

I suppose you can try hacking it through it's antenna system, but there is no reason why it would be responding to a pirate signal anymore than a non-robotic ship. Plus, I can't see why a robotic ships automation would be any more vulnerable to hacker attack than the automation on the non-robotic ship. Its systems can have every bit as much ICE as any computer, even if you could somehow access it.

[Darth Wong]

I don't see why a robotic ship would be prone to be EMP'd or hacked. Non-robotic ships are no less vulnerable to EMP than robotic ones and both can get Faraday cages around fragile electonics.

Unless a Faraday cage is perfectly sealed, its effectiveness will be limited. And it cannot be perfectly sealed if this ship is to interact with the outside world in any way.

As for hacking, you've got to link to the computer first, which means being physically attached to it. That means capturing it and somehow preventing it's internal security from scuttling the ship to evade capture.

If it's a robot ship, it must have some kind of remote-control or remote-override method unless the manufacturers truly trust their electronics to that extent, and that would be dangerous in itself.

I suppose you can try hacking it through it's antenna system, but there is no reason why it would be responding to a pirate signal anymore than a non-robotic ship.

Oh no? Why is it so much easier to hack into a computer system than to get past human-manned security checkpoints in a building?

Plus, I can't see why a robotic ships automation would be any more vulnerable to hacker attack than the automation on the non-robotic ship. Its systems can have every bit as much ICE as any computer, even if you could somehow access it.

Why do server farms have human sysops then?

[Coalition]

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

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

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

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

Both technologies have their uses.

[Gil Hamilton]

Unless a Faraday cage is perfectly sealed, its effectiveness will be limited. And it cannot be perfectly sealed if this ship is to interact with the outside world in any way.

That's true of non-robotic ships as well. I'm willing to admit that I'm missing something here, but I don't see how any of that makes a robot ship more vulnerable than a manned vehicle.

If it's a robot ship, it must have some kind of remote-control or remote-override method unless the manufacturers truly trust their electronics to that extent, and that would be dangerous in itself.

No doubt, but I'm making the not-unreasonable assumption that a thousand years from now when we've got spaceships that can zip around the solar system and beyond, we are going to have really good automation.

Besides, space travel is already done mostly by robots now anyway. Sure, they have a disturbing tendancy to fall victim to the Great Red Ghost that is Mars, but we are building better robots for space travel all the time. Why would it be any different in the future?

Oh no? Why is it so much easier to hack into a computer system than to get past human-manned security checkpoints in a building?

Isn't that a false analogy? Hacking a computer system is a completely different process than getting past a security checkpoint in a building in the physical world.

Why do server farms have human sysops then?

Because those servers can't run themselves. Yet. Once again, I'm humbly making an assumption about advancement in our automation.

[Darth Wong]

That's true of non-robotic ships as well. I'm willing to admit that I'm missing something here, but I don't see how any of that makes a robot ship more vulnerable than a manned vehicle.

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.

No doubt, but I'm making the not-unreasonable assumption that a thousand years from now when we've got spaceships that can zip around the solar system and beyond, we are going to have really good automation.

It doesn't matter how good automation is if hackers get better at the same rate, which is also not reasonable to assume.

Besides, space travel is already done mostly by robots now anyway. Sure, they have a disturbing tendancy to fall victim to the Great Red Ghost that is Mars, but we are building better robots for space travel all the time. Why would it be any different in the future?

These aren't exploration drones; they are warships which are supposed to project power. Robots smart enough to run your military, occupy enemy planets, conduct diplomacy etc. would be a threat to the supremacy of the human race.

Oh no? Why is it so much easier to hack into a computer system than to get past human-manned security checkpoints in a building?

Isn't that a false analogy? Hacking a computer system is a completely different process than getting past a security checkpoint in a building in the physical world.

You're the one who brought up comparisons of the ease of taking over a robot-controlled ship as opposed to a ship controlled by humans. It's a bit late for you to suddenly realize that they're not at all comparable.

Why do server farms have human sysops then?

Because those servers can't run themselves. Yet. Once again, I'm humbly making an assumption about advancement in our automation.

But apparently no advancement whatsoever in hacking methods.

[Darth Wong]

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.

[Gil Hamilton]

Whoops, I thought you were talking about robot ships in general.

[Gil Hamilton]

It doesn't matter how good automation is if hackers get better at the same rate, which is also not reasonable to assume.

The problem is getting access to the ship. In order to hack into a computer, you have to have contact with it and be exchanging information. Hacking a starship would be supremely difficult in that regard because there is no guarantee that it will be connected to the local network or that it won't just turn off it's antenna and not listen to a pirate signal.

These aren't exploration drones; they are warships which are supposed to project power. Robots smart enough to run your military, occupy enemy planets, conduct diplomacy etc. would be a threat to the supremacy of the human race.

Why would it? They don't need to be actually be self-aware to be intelligent and make choices and without self-awareness, how can they have ambition past their job?

You're the one who brought up comparisons of the ease of taking over a robot-controlled ship as opposed to a ship controlled by humans. It's a bit late for you to suddenly realize that they're not at all comparable.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. When I said that I meant that it shouldn't be any harder to hack the automation of a ship with men on it than it would one without. I wasn't speaking about physically boarding the ship. That analogy was all yours.

But apparently no advancement whatsoever in hacking methods.

I never said that their wouldn't be advancements in hacking. My point was that the automation of a manned ship is no more difficult to hack than one of an unmanned ship.

[wautd]

I prefer blastdoors over forcefields but if i could choose i'de choose to have them both. Like said here before, forcefields are a great addition

[Macross]

There was an episode of Voyager where the crew was transporting some criminals for a friendly species. Well they made a big production about how they have the finest security, and they converting a cargo bay into a brig, with numorous cells. Guess what they used to contain the prisoners. Force fields! The cells were just a box surrounded by forcefields. They are then attacked by people trying to resuce the prisoners, and of course, the power is knocked out, and the prisoners escape, leading to phaser fights, etc.

[Prozac the Robert]

There is one other advantage to force fields. If someone gets stuck in a sealed off area, you can quickly drop and reactivate the forcefield. If they get stuck behing a blast door, you wont even see them.

[Prozac the Robert]

Either way, if the advantage was big enough and glitches were unlikely enough it would probably be used. For example: aeroplanes crash if they lose power, airships don't. We still go with heavier than air flight aircraft though, since they have so many advantages and we have decided that they outweigh the risks.

A heavier-than-air plane can afford to suffer partial loss of function (one engine of four, for example) and still fly. If some of the forcefields in this holoship fail, hundreds of people get spaced. Unless it's a robot ship, of course, in which case it will simply be hacked or EMP'd.

There have been aircraft with only one engine. 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. 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).