Hull breach contaiment techs

[Bounty]

couple meters of damaged corridor are still outside the shield, also it's quite clear that Geordi couldn't put the shield anywere.

I think I see your point - maybe I wasn't clear :

So far, we've seen forcefields in one of two locations :

* Fixed forcefields in corridors, like the one in the screenshot above;
* Forcefields that replace missing parts of the (outer) hull, like the one in Generations.

The first kind is basically similar to blastdoors, except they're enrgy-based raher then physical. They don't seem to have many advantages compared to a physical blast door - except weight and size - and it could be argued that power failures are their Achilles' heel (although we've yet to see them fail).

The second kind, however, is the one that has the advantages I mentioned above - allows the affected room to stay in use, and protects the people in the affected area rather then just shutting them out.

(And btw, just like Wars, Trek uses physical blast doors - they are seen in TUC. Perhaps they were abandoned post-TMP, when forcefield technology became more reliable ?)

[Lord Revan]

The second kind, however, is the one that has the advantages I mentioned above - allows the affected room to stay in use, and protects the people in the affected area rather then just shutting them out.

(And btw, just like Wars, Trek uses physical blast doors - they are seen in TUC. Perhaps they were abandoned post-TMP, when forcefield technology became more reliable ?)

second type also generally used as containment shield external door and only generations and Nemesis was used to seal a hull breach (and in both cases it was a critical location) and Enterprise-D used blastdoor to seal of main engineering.

[Lord Revan]

ghetto Edit: also we don't were Generations shield was located.as we don't see it (could have been just in front of Scotty)

[Bounty]

second type also generally used as containment shield external door and only generations and Nemesis was used to seal a hull breach (and in both cases it was a critical location) .

Year of Hell

and Enterprise-D used blastdoor to seal of main engineering

...which has what to do with hullbreaches ?

[Lord Revan]

second type also generally used as containment shield external door and only generations and Nemesis was used to seal a hull breach (and in both cases it was a critical location) .

snip pic
Year of Hell

I stand corrected on that (what's that place anyway, it looks the bridge or other critical (and large) space)

and Enterprise-D used blastdoor to seal of main engineering

...which has what to do with hullbreaches ?

nothing but it shows that starfleet still uses blastdoors

[Bounty]

I stand corrected on that (what's that place anyway, it looks the bridge or other critical (and large) space)

Voyager's bridge, or what was left of it.

[Darth Wong]

couple meters of damaged corridor are still outside the shield, also it's quite clear that Geordi couldn't put the shield anywere.

I think I see your point - maybe I wasn't clear :

So far, we've seen forcefields in one of two locations :

* Fixed forcefields in corridors, like the one in the screenshot above;
* Forcefields that replace missing parts of the (outer) hull, like the one in Generations.

The first kind is basically similar to blastdoors, except they're enrgy-based raher then physical. They don't seem to have many advantages compared to a physical blast door - except weight and size - and it could be argued that power failures are their Achilles' heel (although we've yet to see them fail).

The second kind, however, is the one that has the advantages I mentioned above - allows the affected room to stay in use, and protects the people in the affected area rather then just shutting them out.

(And btw, just like Wars, Trek uses physical blast doors - they are seen in TUC. Perhaps they were abandoned post-TMP, when forcefield technology became more reliable ?)

Read my fucking post, asshole. I dealt with precisely this argument earlier, and I do not take well to being ignored. Got that?

[Bounty]

Read my fucking post, asshole. I dealt with precisely this argument earlier, and I do not take well to being ignored. Got that?

M'kay...

The likelihood of something destroying a significant fraction of the bridge structure without killing the crew inside is near-zero.

It's significantly more then that, since we've seen it happen twice. Wether this is because the hull really is feeble - doubtful - or because of a combination of shields and the SIF absorbing the brunt of the energy, I don't know - but hullbreaches that don't kill the entire bridge crew do happen, and there is an effective countermeasure, so why not use it ?

[Lord Revan]

The likelihood of something destroying a significant fraction of the bridge structure without killing the crew inside is near-zero.

It's significantly more then that, since we've seen it happen twice. Wether this is because the hull really is feeble - doubtful - or because of a combination of shields and the SIF absorbing the brunt of the energy, I don't know - but hullbreaches that don't kill the entire bridge crew do happen, and there is an effective countermeasure, so why not use it ?

taking into account the amount of combat in trek two cases are pretty much near-zero (funny that ENT showed what would typically happen (the whole bridge was blown off), there just isn't enough yield control in even trek weapons for such case to be common not mention that something most people wouldn't want as it leaves the command crew of the enemy ship alive.

[Darth Wong]

The likelihood of something destroying a significant fraction of the bridge structure without killing the crew inside is near-zero.

It's significantly more then that, since we've seen it happen twice.

For which there is only one viable explanation unless you resort to freak occurrences.

Wether this is because the hull really is feeble - doubtful - or because of a combination of shields and the SIF absorbing the brunt of the energy, I don't know

You're a fucking moron. It doesn't matter what absorbs the energy; it has a limit, and whatever gets through that limit must be capable of shredding the structure of the bridge without hurting anyone inside. I hate the way some imbeciles in this world think that you don't have to address a point if you just make up some vaguely related excuse that actually doesn't even address the point directly.

but hullbreaches that don't kill the entire bridge crew do happen, and there is an effective countermeasure, so why not use it ?

Perhaps because you'd be better served making a stronger hull?

[wilfulton]

If ST uses force fields to contain the atmosphere of a ship, wouldn't they be better served simply being powered on when the shields go up? It seems they could concievably react to pressure loss much quicker that way.

Additionally, I think it is a bit of a brain bug going around that a ship's hull can be breached without catastrophic effect against soft targets (ie the crew) in that particular section. In penetrating a thick, armored hull, there is the problem not only of the weapon doing the penetrating, but also the debris from the penetrated armor (spall). Hot metal fragments travelling at hypersonic velocity into the interior of a starship can really ruin your day if you happen to be the hapless redshirt assigned to shit detail in the section of a ship that gets perforated.

[Dave]

Minor nitpick-If the power goes out on an SW ship, the blast doors will stop too (unless the doors have some kind of physical or manual closing mechanism-eg spring or crank handle.)

And why bother using the forcefield to contain hull breeches over the hull itself? If, like everyone says the occupents in the area are dead, why not seal off affected passageways instead of trying to cover what might be a massive hole? The only exception would be very large spaces, such as hangers or mess hall or bridges.

[Stark]

Wilfulton, I think thats the train of thought that prevents hull-sealing forcefields in SW. It DOES make sense to activate these fields before damage, to get rid of reaction time - and this makes them just like SW hull-contiguous shields. If they're on all the time, and you get a hull breach, you've got ... nothing. Your hull-sealing forcefields are already gone by the time the hull is breached.

I was under the impression that for any realistic yield, even blast doors are really a 'save the ship' feature, rather than a 'save the crew in the affected compartment' feature. Actually, since in ST hull breaches show off the 'layercake' of the internals, doesn't that mean the light partitions between rooms and such is enough to absorb the blast wave?

[Batman]

Minor nitpick-If the power goes out on an SW ship, the blast doors will stop too (unless the doors have some kind of physical or manual closing mechanism-eg spring or crank handle.)

Except that for a physical door it is possible to design them so they require power to stay open, and close when power goes out. Try that with a forcefield.
Plus, once a blast door is closed it stays closed even if power fails. A focefield-doesn't.

[Lord Revan]

Minor nitpick-If the power goes out on an SW ship, the blast doors will stop too (unless the doors have some kind of physical or manual closing mechanism-eg spring or crank handle.)

unless the system is designed to rest closed (aka need power to stay open). For example have door mounted on springs so that should opening mechanism shut down, the springs will close the doors (that's rather simple design, not unuseble)

And why bother using the forcefield to contain hull breeches over the hull itself? If, like everyone says the occupents in the area are dead, why not seal off affected passageways instead of trying to cover what might be a massive hole? The only exception would be very large spaces, such as hangers or mess hall or bridges.

even trek uses hull forcefields containment for critacal locations only.

[Jawawithagun]

* Fixed forcefields in corridors, like the one in the screenshot above;
* Forcefields that replace missing parts of the (outer) hull, like the one in Generations.

How do you set up your system of second version force field generators to be able to deal with EVERY POSSIBLE location and size of hull breaches?
How many generators do you need?
Have you counted in enough redundancy to account for hull breaches that take out the generator responsibe for that particular section of the ship?
How much of the ships volume have you just lost to this?

[wilfulton]

This may not do any good against massive tears or gashes in a ship's hull, but it could work against small holes, caused by say micrometeors when the computer controlling the nav deflector goes tits up, or spalling, etc.

We do currently have self-sealing fuel tanks, and naturally, are always looking for better materials to use in sealing holes punctured by gunfire. A similar material inside a starships hull could, say, seal small holes put in it, without depending on an external power source.

As I said, it might not protect against penetration by a HTL bolt, but say some idiot puts a force pike thorugh a window or another random redshirt trips and falls and accidentally fires his phasor (loaded with armor piercing ammo ) at it, it could prevent pressure loss.

[SirNitram]

This may not do any good against massive tears or gashes in a ship's hull, but it could work against small holes, caused by say micrometeors when the computer controlling the nav deflector goes tits up, or spalling, etc.

Actually, think of an ISD. Even an HTL penetrating won't rip through the whole thing.. But dozens of halls will be exposed to hard vac.

A sudden snap-shut of the blast doors will save the majority of the crew and internal space.

[Zed Snardbody]

Shouldn't blast doors already be sealed in combat operations?

I mean not shutters on your windows, but down the corridors and compartments and what not. I was under the impresion thats how it was done in the navy.

[Mr Bean]

Shouldn't blast doors already be sealed in combat operations?

I mean not shutters on your windows, but down the corridors and compartments and what not. I was under the impresion thats how it was done in the navy.

Depends on the area, Yes in non-esseintal areas but for example between ready rooms and the hanger. Or between comms and tatical

[Zed Snardbody]

Ah. Thanks.

[Gordonfrost]

If neither system has ever been seen to fail then there doesn't seem to be much advantage to using one over the other.

[Batman]

If neither system has ever been seen to fail then there doesn't seem to be much advantage to using one over the other.

If one of them has an inherent weakness the other doesn't than yes there is.
Forcefields do.

[Lone_Prodigy]

If neither system has ever been seen to fail then there doesn't seem to be much advantage to using one over the other.

Power failure removes the forcefield, while power failure does remove the blast doors. Simple.

[Hawkwings]

*does not remove the blast doors, perhaps?