Next generation starship program

[biostem]

By the time Kirk had to yell for phaser control to fire, the big E HAD been significantly damaged. They repeately managed to fire phasers from the bridge throughout the episode.

It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the main control line and its backup ran along the exact same route, instead of taking separate ones, to avoid such a crippling system failure...

[Lord Revan]

Yeah the main problem with Starfleet designs seems to be that they've forgotten the engineering princible of seperation (or for some reason cannot impliment it), so that it's rather trivial to take out both the main controls and the back-up systems. I mean how many times we've heard "back-up systems are off-line" or "emergency systems are off-line" in trek.

[Borgholio]

Yeah the main problem with Starfleet designs seems to be that they've forgotten the engineering princible of seperation (or for some reason cannot impliment it), so that it's rather trivial to take out both the main controls and the back-up systems. I mean how many times we've heard "back-up systems are off-line" or "emergency systems are off-line" in trek.

One particularly annoying one for me was the warp core ejection system having no backups and only working twice in the entire history of the series. I guess in addition to bullets and seat belts, people in the 24th century forgot about explosive bolts.

[Lord Revan]

Yeah the main problem with Starfleet designs seems to be that they've forgotten the engineering princible of seperation (or for some reason cannot impliment it), so that it's rather trivial to take out both the main controls and the back-up systems. I mean how many times we've heard "back-up systems are off-line" or "emergency systems are off-line" in trek.

One particularly annoying one for me was the warp core ejection system having no backups and only working twice in the entire history of the series. I guess in addition to bullets and seat belts, people in the 24th century forgot about explosive bolts.

there's plenty of way you could make the warp core "passively safe" in a way that needed no power or input from the main computer. Yet Starfleet chose to impliment a way that needed both as well as active command from the crew to work.

alot of the safety systems in trek seem to work in fine "on paper" in "optimal" conditions but there's no thought put into the possibility (well more of a likelyhood) that when you need those emergency systems it's rarely an optimal scenario you work with.

This was at its worse during early TNG, so I suspect it was a symptom of the Federation getting too complecent during the long era of practically no wars, as even the Cardassian War was just a series of glorified border skirmishes not a full on war with 2 major powers. the Klingon Empire was in more or less friendly terms with UFP and the Romulans were in their self-imposed isolation.

Though one event changed that which is probably why ships and systems seem robust later in TNG or in DS9, VOY or the TNG era movies.

[Simon_Jester]

Keep the bridge, however steal an idea from the 40's that we use today. CiC Combat Information Center. This is where the ship is fought from where the sensors and weapons are controlled. Leave the bridge for navigation concerns but have a separate , dedicated warfare center deep inside the ship. Hell the Galaxy had enough room where you could put a CiC and have an auxiliary bridge as well. Heck why not farm out weapon controls to small dedicated areas so a lucky hit or two won't knock your combat abilities out?

If I commanded a Starfleet ship, I would issue orders that when the ship is at battle stations, the holodeck be repurposed as a CIC. It's extremely configurable, can display information in an unlimited arrangement of ways, and clearly has advanced, massively intelligent computer support or it wouldn't be able to create multiple humanoids capable of passing the Turing Test all at once.

(note, the "I" in CIC stands for "Information" and is capitalized)

[Lord Revan]

problem with a Holodeck CIC is that if there's problems with the holodeck you're left with an empty room with all your controls gone. A physically built "battle bridge" (I might steal that for some designs I'm thinking for my STO Fed Characterss species (for backstory purposes mainly)) would stay useble as well as a normal bridge but wouldn't be exposed at the outer edge of the ship.

[Batman]

So don't dismantle the battle bridge. He said 'repurpose', not 'replace with'. Since many if not most TNG starships already seem to have one or more holodecks it would be folly not to use them. Use the holodeck while it works, Keep the battle bridge (or the main bridge if it's the only one you have) in the loop, switch back to them when the holodeck croaks.
Though I'm not sure the holodeck would be such a big improvement. Sure, it can display Information in an unlimited arrangement of ways, but I suspect the limiting factor is going to be the crew's ability to actually process it. The holodeck gíving you 50 times the Information a standard bridge layout could is middlin useless when the standard bridge layout already gives you more Information than you can handle.

[Typhonis 1]

If I commanded a Starfleet ship, I would issue orders that when the ship is at battle stations, the holodeck be repurposed as a CIC. It's extremely configurable, can display information in an unlimited arrangement of ways, and clearly has advanced, massively intelligent computer support or it wouldn't be able to create multiple humanoids capable of passing the Turing Test all at once.

(note, the "I" in CIC stands for "Information" and is capitalized)

Sorry about that but what I mean is a purpose built, dedicated CIC. One manned 24/7 ready to go . General Quarters sounds all they have to do is assess the situation and start prioritizing targets. The bridge is merely a flying bridge, as the Navy calls them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_bridge

[Crazedwraith]

Why?

I can think of one time in all of Star Trek when the bridge location was a problem.

[WATCH-MAN]

there's plenty of way you could make the warp core "passively safe" in a way that needed no power or input from the main computer. Yet Starfleet chose to impliment a way that needed both as well as active command from the crew to work.

alot of the safety systems in trek seem to work in fine "on paper" in "optimal" conditions but there's no thought put into the possibility (well more of a likelyhood) that when you need those emergency systems it's rarely an optimal scenario you work with.

This was at its worse during early TNG, so I suspect it was a symptom of the Federation getting too complecent during the long era of practically no wars, as even the Cardassian War was just a series of glorified border skirmishes not a full on war with 2 major powers. the Klingon Empire was in more or less friendly terms with UFP and the Romulans were in their self-imposed isolation.

Though one event changed that which is probably why ships and systems seem robust later in TNG or in DS9, VOY or the TNG era movies.

Describe one way that ensures that the warp core is not ejected while e.g. the ship is in the middle of a battle with e.g. the Borg.

A few days ago, I saw the TNG episodes "The Best of Both Worlds" and wondered what would have happened if a "passively safe" ejection system had ejected the warp core of the USS Enterprise during their battle with the Borg?

Or what would have happened in the TNG episode "11001001" when problems with the warp core occurred while the USS Enterprise was inside of a Starbase if the ship had a "passively safe" ejection system?

How can you ensure that a "passively safe" ejection system really ejects the warp core only when it is wished that the warp core is ejected?

And how can you design such a ejection system at all?

I could imagine that you can not simply rip out such a warp core. It is built into a ship and connected with the matter- and anti-matter-supply, it is connected with the electro-plasma distribution network and with whatever else. To simply rip the warp core out could mean a disaster if it is not properly disconnected and the tubes not closed properly.

But if you are sure that there are plenty of ways you could make the warp core "passively safe" - I'm really interested in learning at least only one.

[Lord Revan]

lets see in particular order.

Reduce the amount to reactants in the reactor to the absolute minium needed for the reaction (as I said in my first ever thread on this forum, the reactor is not the right place to store your unused fuel that's what anti-matter pods are for).

have at least one of the systems work without power (as simple as having a lever at a secure location pull to active the ejection if the active method doesn't work).

having several systems that are independent and isolated of each other.

having a system that ejects the core when breach is unavoidble even if everyone on board is dead or unable to call for the ejection due to other reasons


that's just a few I can easily name top of my head. Now I lost my patience with your semantics playing in the last thread you were involved, if you got valid objections name them but if all you got semantics then please keep them to yourself and save us all some time.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I could imagine that you can not simply rip out such a warp core. It is built into a ship and connected with the matter- and anti-matter-supply, it is connected with the electro-plasma distribution network and with whatever else. To simply rip the warp core out could mean a disaster if it is not properly disconnected and the tubes not closed properly.

It could mean a disaster...as opposed to leaving the warp core in situ and letting it explode and take the whole damn ship with it. Are you serious?

As for "simply ripping it out" well, um, how do you think the core ejection system works? When we see it used in Insurrection it can be ejected in a matter of seconds. For the ejection system to make sense it kinda has to be able to work quickly to stop the entire ship blowing up. Which is, y'know, the point of the system (when it isn't disabled due to Plot).

So, we don't have to figure out how to eject the core, that much Starfleet has already managed. What we do have to do is come up with a better way to control said system and make the core safer in general. Lord Revan pointed out several good ideas, mainly being eliminate excess reactants within the core itself. Multiple, independent fuel cutoff valves also come to mind.

This is why having a second (or more) smaller warp core is also a good idea. It allows redundancy so that if one core has to be shut down or ejected the ship still has half its main power available if needs be. If one core needs maintenance, the ship can still function rather than being dead in space.

As for the core being ejected at the wrong moment, that is easily handled. Have the automated ejection system set off a bloody loud alarm on the bridge/in CIC/in Engineering. If no-one presses the off switch after a few seconds, the core is ejected. Modern attack subs do this with their emergency radio beacons AFAIK. Or, like the nuclear self-destruct in "The Andromeda Strain" automatically armed but must be manually disarmed or it blows up.

[WATCH-MAN]

Reduce the amount to reactants in the reactor to the absolute minium needed for the reaction (as I said in my first ever thread on this forum, the reactor is not the right place to store your unused fuel that's what anti-matter pods are for).

Do not assume that I do know what you said in your first ever thread on this forum.

But do you have any evidence that there is not only the absolute minimum amount of reactant in a warp core?

I do not want to pretend that I really understand the physics behind a matter-anti-matter-anihiliation.

I thought that matter and anti-matter only have to come into contact with each other to annihilate each other and release their mass as energy (e=mc²).

But as it seems: It is not as simple in a warp core.

From the TOS episode "The Naked Time" we learn that turned off and completely cold engines usually take thirty minutes to regenerate them - that this are the unchangeable laws of physics - that you can't mix matter and antimatter cold - unless you balance the engines into a controlled implosion - what was then only a theory - never done before.

And we know that dilithium is needed to control the power of the warp drive systems by regulating the matter-anti-matter reaction in a ship's warp core.

Both information are not compatible with what I think to know about matter-ant-matter-reactions.

Conclusion: A warp core works differently from how I thought it should work.

In dubio pro reo I now assume that it is necessary to have a certain pressure and a certain temperature in a warp core to get an annihilation.

That seems to me more conclusive than to assume that someone who is intelligent enough to build, operate and maintain such a warp core, is so stupid that he would store his unused fuel in the reaction chamber - although he has anti-matter pods for this.

have at least one of the systems work without power (as simple as having a lever at a secure location pull to active the ejection if the active method doesn't work).

And how is pulling a lever safely disconnecting a warp core from its connections to the ship, its electro-plasma distribution network and the anti-matter-supply?

having several systems that are independent and isolated of each other.

And this means "passively safe"?

To me that means only redundancy.

having a system that ejects the core when breach is unavoidble even if everyone on board is dead or unable to call for the ejection due to other reasons

And how can a "passively safe" system determine that a breach is unavoidable and disconnect the warp core from the ship and eject the warp core?

And what is with time?

Maybe the breach is unavoidable but still five minutes away.

Enough time to fly a ship out of a starbase.

But if your criterion for ejection is only that a breach has to be unavoidable, your "passively safe" system would have ejected the warp core inside of the starbase in the TNG episode "11001001".

I'm not sure that this really would be preferable.

that's just a few I can easily name top of my head.

Nothing you said described a way how you could make the warp core "passively safe".

It could mean a disaster...as opposed to leaving the warp core in situ and letting it explode and take the whole damn ship with it. Are you serious?

To prevent one disaster by causing another disaster may not be to optimal solution.

If an active ejection system is necessary to safely disconnect a warp core from its ship to eject the warp core, I would prefer such an active ejection system to a passive ejection system that simply rips out the warp core by detonating a few explosive charges and then lets the anti-matter from the anti-matter-pods and the plasma from the electro-plasma distribution network flow in the ship as the ripped apart connections were not sealed properly.

As for "simply ripping it out" well, um, how do you think the core ejection system works? When we see it used in Insurrection it can be ejected in a matter of seconds. For the ejection system to make sense it kinda has to be able to work quickly to stop the entire ship blowing up. Which is, y'know, the point of the system (when it isn't disabled due to Plot).

I think that in the first step of the ejection procedure the connections between the warp core and the ship have to be disconnected and sealed. And only if the warp core is disconnected from the anti-matter-supply and the electro-plasma distribution network and these connections are sealed, can the warp core be ejected safely.

That could be a matter of seconds.

But it may be not something a "passively safe" system could do.

It may be something that has to be coordinated by the computer.

So, we don't have to figure out how to eject the core, that much Starfleet has already managed. What we do have to do is come up with a better way to control said system and make the core safer in general. Lord Revan pointed out several good ideas, mainly being eliminate excess reactants within the core itself. Multiple, independent fuel cutoff valves also come to mind.

He assumed that those who are able to build, operate and maintain such a warp core are stupid and claimed that it is easy to make such a warp core safe by using a "passively safe" ejection system. He claimed that a lever at a secure location one only has to pull to activate the ejection could be enough. I say that this is bullshit typically coming from someone from the chairborne division.

This is why having a second (or more) smaller warp core is also a good idea. It allows redundancy so that if one core has to be shut down or ejected the ship still has half its main power available if needs be. If one core needs maintenance, the ship can still function rather than being dead in space.

That's not a "passively safe" system.

Furthermore - what's more plausible?

That nobody else in the Federation had this brilliant idea?

Or that this idea was indeed considered but rejected as the drawbacks were greater than the advantages.

The arrogance you and Lord Revan are exhibiting is astonishing. Because if you really think that nobody has considered your brilliant ideas, you really have to think that the people who are able to build, operate and maintain a warp core have to be stupid.

As for the core being ejected at the wrong moment, that is easily handled. Have the automated ejection system set off a bloody loud alarm on the bridge/in CIC/in Engineering. If no-one presses the off switch after a few seconds, the core is ejected. Modern attack subs do this with their emergency radio beacons AFAIK. Or, like the nuclear self-destruct in "The Andromeda Strain" automatically armed but must be manually disarmed or it blows up.

And this is a "passively safe" system?

And who says that there is not already such a system?

In the TNG episode "Contagion" we learned that for the case of an uncontrolled and catastrophic matter-anti-matter mix caused by a collapse of the magnetic seals between the chambers, there is an emergency release system which dumps the antimatter.

And we know that there are redundant systems on the Enterprise.

So has the secondary plasma vent a triple redundant bypass (TNG episode "Thine Own Self").

And each transporter pad has four redundant scanners. If any one scanner fails, the other three take over. (TNG episode "Realm of Fear").

And from the DS9 episode "Destiny" we learn that according to the Starfleet code even the main switching relay of a transceiver needs two backups although it is not likely that the primary system and the primary backup fail at the same time to really necessitate a secondary backup.

To me it does not look like Starfleet is not using backups and redundant systems.

But you and Lord Revan claim to be able to envision a system that is safer than what Starfleet has.

I want to see it.

But not only vague suggestions.

I want to see a "passively safe" system described detailed enough that I can really imagine it.

[tezunegari]

have at least one of the systems work without power (as simple as having a lever at a secure location pull to active the ejection if the active method doesn't work).

And how is pulling a lever safely disconnecting a warp core from its connections to the ship, its electro-plasma distribution network and the anti-matter-supply?

The lever disconnects the power supply to whatever system that keeps the reactant valves open. No Energy to the valves -> they close.
Then a timer starts and disconnects the reactant input from the warpcore and the core is jettisoned.

having several systems that are independent and isolated of each other.

And this means "passively safe"?

To me that means only redundancy.

Redundancy is passive safety. Several systems do the same thing at the same time. No user input required.

having a system that ejects the core when breach is unavoidble even if everyone on board is dead or unable to call for the ejection due to other reasons

And how can a "passively safe" system determine that a breach is unavoidable and disconnect the warp core from the ship and eject the warp core?

And what is with time?

Maybe the breach is unavoidable but still five minutes away.

Enough time to fly a ship out of a starbase.

But if your criterion for ejection is only that a breach has to be unavoidable, your "passively safe" system would have ejected the warp core inside of the starbase in the TNG episode "11001001".

I'm not sure that this really would be preferable.

The ship's computer would know it is inside a starbase. the passive safety protocol would change from "eject immediately" to "get as far away from the base as possible ASAP, then if possible eject core and save ship other wise 'Have a nice day' "

This is why having a second (or more) smaller warp core is also a good idea. It allows redundancy so that if one core has to be shut down or ejected the ship still has half its main power available if needs be. If one core needs maintenance, the ship can still function rather than being dead in space.

That's not a "passively safe" system.

Furthermore - what's more plausible?

That nobody else in the Federation had this brilliant idea?

Or that this idea was indeed considered but rejected as the drawbacks were greater than the advantages.

The arrogance you and Lord Revan are exhibiting is astonishing. Because if you really think that nobody has considered your brilliant ideas, you really have to think that the people who are able to build, operate and maintain a warp core have to be stupid.

The existence of a second warp core doesn't require input from a user, therefore as a safety measure it is passive.
A second warp core would allow powering engines and shields should the damaged warp core go critical at closer range to the ship.
Or it would allow the ship to reach safe distance to the exploding core.

I want to see a "passively safe" system described detailed enough that I can really imagine it.

A simple passively safe system:

There are sensors inside the warpcore that monitor any important piece, valve, flow rate, pressure, maybe even favorite color of the device...
Should a sensor receive readings outside specified parameters it will generate a warning for Engineers.
If no reaction to that warning is given... pre-defined actions are taken.
For example:
Power supply for the containment fields of the antimatter storage is fluctuating.
And the containment fields are constantly loosing strength slowly.
Once the containment fields are at minimum strength required to work, and no action is taken by the crew -> eject all antimatter pods.

Or:
Sensor readings indicate a containment breach inside the warp core.
Warnings are given all over the ship.
No reaction from the crew or engineers.
Close all reactant input valves and warp plasma output valves.
Disconnect all connections between ship storage and warpcore.
Activate force field around warpcore shaft.
Open warpcore ejection port of the hull.
Deactivate magnetic locks that keep the warpcore in place.
Activate booster package at the top of the warpcore -> warpcore is jettisoned.
Or the warpcore is kept in low-friction rails and is held against a pushing force (thing same-pole magnets).

These two examples are passive as they require no user input to active.

[biostem]

I want to see a "passively safe" system described detailed enough that I can really imagine it.

Active safety: You need to maintain forcefield and you need to exert effort to keep the matter/antimatter "valves" closed, so as to control the amount of reactants.

Passively safe: The aforementioned valves restrict or close completely, in the event of an emergency or loss of power, instead of needing said power in order to carry out that task - in other words, off/limited is the default/base state of the valves, and effort is required to open them. Similarly, if the forcefields containing the matter and antimatter start to drop or fluctuate, the crew must take steps to *not* have the engine purge the reactants or shut down the engine completely/eject the warp core, without someone stepping in to prevent it.

[Sea Skimmer]

These two examples are passive as they require no user input to active.

That's really not what is meant by passive safety for this kind of engineering. You are simply describing automatic active safety systems with seemingly numerous complex points of failure. The mere fact that a human operation is not required is not useful passive safety. biostem has the better idea.

A computer passive safety system would run more more like this. The reactor is held in by bolts which are spring loaded to open, and said bolts locked in place in place by electromagnets. The power system for the containment system also powers the magnets. If the later looses power the bolts retract and the reactor falls out on its own (with no gravity we'll assume another giant spring for this purpose).

The control rods for some nuclear reactors already work like this. Coolant pump power failure or control system power failure cuts magnet power and the rods drop into place. This is passive safety which is inherently fail safe.

If you were inside a star base.... well who the hell cares? If the reactor is capable of blowing up inside a star base with heavy damage and loss of life then the proper engineering solution to this is to not put a giant bomb indoors on a massively inhabited structure! In the battleship era major capital units that presented this sort of persistent magazine explosion hazard were required to unload their gunpowder before entering major dockyards for just this reason. That was a waaay laxer era of safety then the modern day too. The shells were allowed to stay on board for short repair visits typically, as they represented a far smaller aggregated explosive hazard. This unloading would be done at special piers, or onto barges while anchored in the roadstead.

If putting the ship indoors is an absolute requirement then it should be defueled of antimatter before entering dock at a nearby facility. The fact that Trek has tractor beams for easy ship movement makes failure to do so utterly inexcusable.

You could have a physical safety pin system to disable a true passive safety system in dock, but frankly this is just like trying to make your hand grenade safe to carry on the school bus in level of rational. If meanwhile the explosion risk cannot be eliminated prior to docking for reasons that could only be stupid, then the fact that it might happen inbetween the ship hull and the dock wall a rather then inside the hull ship seems irrelevant to the overall damage. Trek warp core explosions are so violent it wouldn't matter. Indeed exploding in the void might cause less damage then the ship being more efficiently converted into high speed fragmentation that would then all impact the dock.

[WATCH-MAN]

That's really not what is meant by passive safety for this kind of engineering. You are simply describing automatic active safety systems with seemingly numerous complex points of failure. The mere fact that a human operation is not required is not useful passive safety.

Exactly

A computer passive safety system would run more more like this. The reactor is held in by bolts which are spring loaded to open, and said bolts locked in place in place by electromagnets. The power system for the containment system also powers the magnets. If the later looses power the bolts retract and the reactor falls out on its own (with no gravity we'll assume another giant spring for this purpose).

And now we are at the same question again: This would merely rip out the warp core that is connected with the pipes from the matter-anti-matter storage and the electro-plasma distribution network. These pipes have to be closed before the warp core is ejected. Otherwise the plasma from the electro-plasma distribution network and the anti-matter from the anti-matter-pipes would flow into the ship. And at least the anti-matter pipes do need a magnetic containment to prevent that the anti-matter comes in contact with the normal matter of the pipes or valves. They are not like water pipes you can simply close with a valve.

Another problem is, that the warp core could be ejected during a battle, when due to the damage, energy is fluctuating.

Or in the TNG episode "Booby Trap" the warp core could have been ejected when the Enterprises energy was drained by the aceton assimilators.

Or other strong magnetic fields - e.g. such coming from a star - could result in an unwanted activation of the ejection system.

The control rods for some nuclear reactors already work like this. Coolant pump power failure or control system power failure cuts magnet power and the rods drop into place. This is passive safety which is inherently fail safe.

That's the difference between a space ship and a nuclear reactor on Earth. A nuclear reactor on Earth does not go into battles or near stars. It does not encounter unexpected circumstances. And when something unexpected happens, it is safe to let the rod drop into place to interrupt the nuclear reaction. On a starship this means the loss of the battle or the loss of the ship and its crew in other critical situation.

If you were inside a star base.... well who the hell cares? If the reactor is capable of blowing up inside a star base with heavy damage and loss of life then the proper engineering solution to this is to not put a giant bomb indoors on a massively inhabited structure! In the battleship era major capital units that presented this sort of persistent magazine explosion hazard were required to unload their gunpowder before entering major dockyards for just this reason. That was a waaay laxer era of safety then the modern day too. The shells were allowed to stay on board for short repair visits typically, as they represented a far smaller aggregated explosive hazard. This unloading would be done at special piers, or onto barges while anchored in the roadstead.

If putting the ship indoors is an absolute requirement then it should be defueled of antimatter before entering dock at a nearby facility. The fact that Trek has tractor beams for easy ship movement makes failure to do so utterly inexcusable.

You could have a physical safety pin system to disable a true passive safety system in dock, but frankly this is just like trying to make your hand grenade safe to carry on the school bus in level of rational. If meanwhile the explosion risk cannot be eliminated prior to docking for reasons that could only be stupid, then the fact that it might happen inbetween the ship hull and the dock wall a rather then inside the hull ship seems irrelevant to the overall damage. Trek warp core explosions are so violent it wouldn't matter. Indeed exploding in the void might cause less damage then the ship being more efficiently converted into high speed fragmentation that would then all impact the dock.

"Disarming" a warp core before entering a Starbase may be sensible.

But what is with ships in orbit of a planet?

If the warp-core is automatically ejected and explodes in orbit of a planet ...

[Sea Skimmer]

And now we are at the same question again: This would merely rip out the warp core that is connected with the pipes from the matter-anti-matter storage and the electro-plasma distribution network. These pipes have to be closed before the warp core is ejected.

Why? Anti matter can be cut off at the source before ejection, by the same sort of trigger mechanism that would cause the ejection actuating however this is normally done. Though you'd really want to eject the pods too, and I believe that was mentioned more then once in the various shows.

Otherwise the plasma from the electro-plasma distribution network and the anti-matter from the anti-matter-pipes would flow into the ship.

At worst plasma would vent into the reactor compartment, which would now be vented to deep space. That doesn't matter and is if anything desirable given how dangerous those pipes are in the first place to the human crew.

And at least the anti-matter pipes do need a magnetic containment to prevent that the anti-matter comes in contact with the normal matter of the pipes or valves. They are not like water pipes you can simply close with a valve.

Yeah actually its easier then closing a valve, because the magnetic field in the pipe will hold the anti matter in place and can instantly reverse the flow back to the storage tanks. It doesn't actually need to be closed at the end at all, it just needs the field to stop moving it forward. That clearly has to happen anyway for a normal eject and can be controlled with solid state switches again, thrown by loss of voltage on a certain circuit aka the power to the main containment. One switch triggers and the stuff goes backwards, plain and simple and depending on how good solid state has gotten in Trek, probably with no moving parts either.

Ideally though the anti matter would be cut off at the source, and pipes purged into the core before it ejects. Also in any rational system the piping runs would be as short as possible.

Obviously any warp core ejection system would require something like this. As would being able to turn the thing off at all! This isn't a reason to overengineer other parts of the overall safety system.

Another problem is, that the warp core could be ejected during a battle, when due to the damage, energy is fluctuating.

A capacitor would solve any such problem. Ever heard of one? But you seem to just not grasp the idea of linking this power source directly to the containment power. Or how damn often fail safe systems already work like this with great success. If containment still has power it's not going to go off. Clearly the warp core containment already has some level of built in power buffering.

Or in the TNG episode "Booby Trap" the warp core could have been ejected when the Enterprises energy was drained by the aceton assimilators.

The warp core didn't loose containment or come close to doing so. Ergo, no, it would not have been ejected. Meanwhile any accidental risk is balanced against all the unending times Federation ships actually already did massively explode with the loss of all hands, and all the other times it almost happened from stupid things on that very ship, that sort of risk is more then acceptable.

Or other strong magnetic fields - e.g. such coming from a star - could result in an unwanted activation of the ejection system.

Star Trek has handheld superconducting magnets. Any external magnetic field that could overpower one used as a locking device from a great distance would be causing much greater problems for the ship, like disrupting human brain functions kind of problem. You sure couldn't trust a computer to do anything in that situation.

That's the difference between a space ship and a nuclear reactor on Earth. A nuclear reactor on Earth does not go into battles or near stars. It does not encounter unexpected circumstances. And when something unexpected happens, it is safe to let the rod drop into place to interrupt the nuclear reaction. On a starship this means the loss of the battle or the loss of the ship and its crew in other critical situation.

So because the ship could encounter unexpected situations, you think a low level of safety is a good idea ? That is completely and utterly moronic in an environment in which such situations are constantly proven to be a mortal hazard to the ship precisely because it can explode so easily. A reasonable starship without main power should not be a death trap!

"Disarming" a warp core before entering a Starbase may be sensible.

But what is with ships in orbit of a planet?

If the warp-core is automatically ejected and explodes in orbit of a planet ...

Then it would not be nearly so bad as the entire ship exploding with the same force from the warp core and then also the anti matter storage tanks, and then having all the ship debris rain down on the planet below! In fact from what we see the warp core explosions alone are not nearly big enough to be a serious surface hazard in typical Trek orbits, which are thousands of miles high. The debris from a ship though would come down with the force of multiple atom bombs over a wide area, and you'd only be able to stop that given another major spaceship or similar capability.

The risk of a pure core explosion would be simply mitigated by raising the minimal allowed orbits for large starships to a safe height, unless absolutely necessary for operational reasons to save lives in conditions where transporters aren't working from higher up. Though one might also ask why they never used shuttlecraft more in those situations.

[Lord Revan]

About containtment power flactuation being a problem, obviously you would have threshold you needed to hit before the passive system would react. Kind of like a fuse doesn't burn out everytime when current is directed thru it, but if the current is too strong it will burn out preventing damage elsewhere.

Say for example the system doesn't react until core containment hit 10% power, so if your containment power flactuates that much that it can drop from 100% to 10% "normally" then the occational uneeded ejection is the least of your problems and yes being in battle is "normal" for starfleet ships it might not typical but it's common enough to be considered normal operations.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Honestly, if a starship is in battle and is damaged enough that they feel the nee to eject the warp core, that ship is fucked anyway regardless of having a manual, automatic or passive core ejection system.

As for ejecting a critically damaged warp core over a planet, well, Sea Skimmer's idea of raising standard orbit altitude works, but also I would think you could add a regulation that all ships must orbit with the warp core ejection port orientated "upwards" and away from the planet surface. That way at least it gets even further from the surface before it goes boom.

[biostem]

Given the level of technology, I'm sure that they could have several backup fusion reactors on-site in engineering that they could either hook up or are already in place, with the sole purpose of maintaining containment systems. Heck, there should be small, isolated backup power units scattered all over the ship - so even in the event of total power failure, you could hook one or more up to maintain life support, get the computers back online, etc.

[Tribble]

IMO timing is pretty simple: what is the minimum amount of time required for the warp core and/or antimatter storage pods to be ejected to a safe distance, assuming the starship is totally disabled? When a potential breach is detected the crew have up until that moment to take whatever steps are necessary to fix the breach (or perhaps override it ).

[Sea Skimmer]

IMO timing is pretty simple: what is the minimum amount of time required for the warp core and/or antimatter storage pods to be ejected to a safe distance, assuming the starship is totally disabled? When a potential breach is detected the crew have up until that moment to take whatever steps are necessary to fix the breach (or perhaps override it ).

You could also improve the amount of time you had in this respect by adding powered propulsion to the warp core ejection system so it will reach a safe distance in less time. A series of rockets ignited by a striker released by the act of ejection for example, or a gas/steam generator cartridge set that forces it out like a piston, the later being how cold launch systems for large ICBMs work, the former is how a lot of things work including blowing off ICBM silo lids covered in debris. These sort of systems are already proven in a nuclear effects environment, and stable for long term storage. Yet they would not generate so much energy that accidental ignition would be a hazard to the ship with proper design, and the core locking mechanism in place.

I just cited springs to keep things dead simple.

Generally you do not want remote means to override critical safety systems though, because god only knows history has proven if you give people that ability they will use it when they should not. Still that would be much more acceptable on a pure warship designed to fight, and not the Federation idea of building armed research vessels like gunpowder engine powered Formula 1 cars.

[Elheru Aran]

I can see overriding safety systems being permissible on a Starfleet ship in extreme emergency, perhaps by authorization of the CO, if a last-ditch maneuver is called for or a boost to the weapons systems at the expense of other systems.

For example, "Turn off the atmosphere processors and deactivate gravity plating in any empty decks and redirect the power to shields!" or "We're done anyway, remove the red-line safeties and put everything into the phaser cannons!"

Conversely, the rules about overriding safeties would (logically) be much more stringent on civilian or non-combat craft.

As for reactor ejection: having rules about which way the ship would face when in orbit is well and good, but in a 3-D maneuvering environment, you can't always guarantee which way it's going to face.

[Zeropoint]

A nuclear reactor on Earth does not go into battles or near stars. It does not encounter unexpected circumstances. And when something unexpected happens, it is safe to let the rod drop into place to interrupt the nuclear reaction. On a starship this means the loss of the battle or the loss of the ship and its crew in other critical situation.

I'd like to point out that on the real world nuclear powered warship aboard which I served, we certainly DID have systems in place to automatically shut down the reactors in the case of problems. We had systems which required active power to keep the reactor "on", which would shut it off by completely passive means if power to those mechanisms were lost. From Wikipedia:

In PWRs, the control rods are held above a reactor's core by electric motors against both their own weight and a powerful spring. Any cutting of the electric current releases the rods. Another design uses electromagnets to hold the rods suspended, with any cut to electric current resulting in an immediate and automatic control rod insertion. A SCRAM mechanism is designed to release the control rods from those motors and allows their weight and the spring to drive them into the reactor core, in four seconds or less, thus rapidly halting the nuclear reaction by absorbing liberated neutrons.

The rods could also be dropped by manually triggering a SCRAM, or it could be triggered automatically if the system detected that the reactor was operating outside the allowed limits. We also had a backup to that, which would flood the reactor with a solution of a boron compound (also described on the Wikipedia page for SCRAM).

Basically, it makes good engineering sense to have the default state of your power plant, to which it automatically reverts in the case of a loss of power, control, fuel, or other inputs, be a harmless lump. Much of the basic design of Star Trek ships is informed by "rule of drama" rather than any kind of practical sense, and I (among others) feel that the drama actually suffers for it.

That would be one of my big pushes if I were in charge of a next generation starship program--can we find a power system that ISN'T a big bomb kept on the cusp of exploding?