Just a point that was raised yesterday on BBC2 and has been bugging me ever since. Why didn't the original Enterprise (or any other Starfleet ship for that matter) have seatbelts? The way they're continually shook up at the slightest hint of trouble, it would be worth the investment.
That question has been around since the show aired. It was actually addressed in the Motion Picture, when the refitted Enterprise got seatbelts, or at least armrests that could be clamped over the lap in an emergency.
I think later on, they must have just figured out that the same inertial damping field that keeps the crew from splattering against the back wall when they accelerate would also keep them in their seats during a bit of shaking. Also, when the ship tilts, the artificial gravity would still pull them toward the floor, making it really hard for anybody to get dumped out of his seat that way.
After the patented exploding panel, falling out of the chair is definitely the biggest cause of death in Star Trek. Seatbelts would still be a good idea though.
The Intergalactic Spacecraft Safety Commission (ISSC) didn't require suplemental restraint until after the original TV series but just before the first motion picture.
Many people don't know this but that is actually why the Enterprise (NCC-1701) was in dry dock. It was getting some swinging after-market seat belts installed.
If you look closely in Wrath of Khan, you will see that the Enterprise also now has the after-market "cyclops" brake light.
I want to know how their quarters stay so tidy. Everything in it's place and nothing broken after a fierce battle has happened.
Trivia: In the movies they actually had the bridge on a giant gimble so they could shake it for real. I think it was in Generations on the Enterprise B, Shatner was holding one of the hand rails when they were shaking the bridge and the rail broke tossing him into the lower level. Maybe they should reconsider seat belts.
I guess the trouble is that they're only flying around the bridge to create drama. So it wouldn't make much sense to install seatbelts to fetter the drama. Not in a dramatic sense at least. As far as realism, if the bridge of the ship was shaking around that much, wouldn't the warp nacelles probably break off?
Yeah yeah, structural integrity fields, yada yada yada ;)
People, people, lets remember what we're about here....drama!
Logic never enters into it!
Thats why There are NO MARINES on the Enterprise...well, not till the current show, maby.
Red shirts die like flies. They are monster fodder.
Oh, wait...Marines require better writeing of the fight scenes....
Powerarmor, phasers, and built in tricorders....that what I want for my birthday!
Semper Fi...carry on!
I think a far better question is why don't our own Earth-bound school buses have seat belts?
In terms of Star Trek, it seems that the crew must be ready to bolt from their seats and spring into action at any time, thus making seatbelts a liability. Picture this scene...
CYBORG: (Transports through Enterprise shields onto bridge and draws light saber). Resistance is futile!
O'HURA: (Shrieks)
KIRK: Sulu! Stop that cyborg!
SULU: (Lunges from seat, eyes and tongue bug out as seatbelt cuts into midsection) Ack!!!
It'd never work.
trek_geezer wrote:
> I want to know how their quarters stay so tidy. Everything in
> it's place and nothing broken after a fierce battle has
> happened.
>
Really!! And on TNG (and later), everyone always had all this crap from their childhood, etc, but in their quarters - nothin.' We sure could use some of that space age housekeeping!
Is it just an impression, or did panel fires become worse as time went by? I never recall Spock's 60s style radar scope exploding (a good thing, because his face was quite close to it), whereas Voyager's bridge was rife with fireworks. Perhaps Starfleet should enquire into the way the contracts were awarded.
I think Starfleet should approach the manufacturer of the inertial dampers and the artificial gravity to build more of the ship. Those systems never fail. Compare that to, say, the transporters.
Hmmm, this thread has got me thinking that there are a few things wrong with traditional starship design. The one that always got me is that they stick the bridge right on top, in this little bump on the saucer that could be blown clean off if anybody made a serious effort to aim at it (which they don't). It's not an ocean vessel, where they have to overlook everything from above. They don't even use windows on the bridge, just a screen. It could be located anywhere. Why not bury the bridge in the centre of the ship?
Then again, we've seen nacelles damaged, torpedo bays blown up, and holes blown clean through the saucer, but nobody ever lands a good hit on the bridge. Maybe just enough to cause shaking and a shower of sparks that somehow even fails to disrupt the delicate electronic systems used for everything.
AlexB wrote:
> I think Starfleet should approach the manufacturer of the
> inertial dampers and the artificial gravity to build more of
> the ship. Those systems never fail. Compare that to, say, the
> transporters.
Or the holodeck. I mean, the first time any ships holodeck tries to take over the vessel, wouldn't there be a general fleet-wide order to take them all offline?
For that matter, wouldn't the holodeck's ability to create sentient beings (eg. Moriarty) be a huge discovery, not something to be just forgotten about.
Come to think of it, the transporter can separate good and evil, splice genes, cross dimensions and make people older or younger, and nobody has considered this worthy of further research.
Then again, in the Star Trek universe, a Dyson sphere is nothing more than a plot device for bringing Scotty back.
Actually, the real technological miracle of Star Trek is the tachyon beam. It can do anything!
A while back, a friend and I decided the show would be far more amusing if the warp drive was run with a manual gearbox.
Picard: Ensign, engage warp drive, warp factor 5 (probably not realistic ST dialogue since I'm not a huge fan)
Ensign: Yes, sir. ::pushes in clutch, wrestles with stick shift, gears grinding mercilessly::
Picard: Hurry, the Klingon fleet is approaching!
Ensign: I'm trying, sir! ::more grinding gears SCREEECHKABLAM!:: Sir, it appears we've stalled, sir.
::bridge is blown clean off the saucer by a well-placed torpedo fired by a Klingon weapons officer who frequents badmovies.org.::
Brother R
> Then again, we've seen nacelles damaged, torpedo bays blown up,
> and holes blown clean through the saucer, but nobody ever lands
> a good hit on the bridge. Maybe just enough to cause shaking
> and a shower of sparks that somehow even fails to disrupt the
> delicate electronic systems used for everything.
I came to the conclusion that the Enterprise was built like an A-10, with a thick titanium washtub around the crazy exposed bridge. You would think that they would put it at the center of the ship, where mass could protect both the fragile crew and circuits. However, I cannot think of even one starship design that ever did that. Star Destoyers, Star Frontiers Ships, Star Trek ships, and Star Blazers ship designs all had the bridge right where a bright solar flare would cause problems.
You know, it is obvious that space science fiction requires the use of "Star" in the name.
My head hurts.
I think we can forgive Star Blazers, since they were deliberately going for nautical feel. And they at least used windows on the bridge. Didn't they also have two extra bridges, one of them really flimsily attached to the bottom of the ship?
On naval vessels the bridge is in the superstructure (the part that sticks out the top), but all the war making business goes on below decks in the Combat Information Center.
The real geek appears here: In the Star Trek Technical manual the bridge on Starships is a module which can be plucked out of the ship and replaced with one of a different configuration. (This explains why the Enterprise could have different bridges in different movies.)