barnett@ut-sally.UUCP (Lewis Barnett) (08/14/85)
I'm sitting here watching "Where No Man Has Gone Before," and
something Kirk said during the encounter brought to mind a point
that has bothered (or maybe amused) me for a long time.
Just as they moved into the barrier, he said, "Gravitation on
automatic." A bit later, one of the damage reports was, "Gravitation
down to 0.8." Now, the folks who gave us Star Trek seemed pretty
eager to show us all the wonderful gadgets they had come up with
in the 23rd century, such as phasers, transporters, warp drive,
etc. Now why wouldn't they talk about something as mind boggling
as gravity control? And, even better, in all the times we've
seen the Enterprise badly damaged isn't it funny that the
gravity never goes out? That'd be a scene of quite some
visual impact -- everyone floating about the bridge and corridors.
And practically speaking, you'd expect such a failure to be
inevitable; if so, you'd also expect the Enterprise's designers
to have planned for the possibility. But, to the contrary, the
design of the Enterprise seems to have completely ignored the fact
that the crew might at times have to deal with zero G.
Anyone have any speculations on the subject?
Lewis Barnett,CS Dept, Painter Hall 3.28, Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX 78712
-- barnett@ut-sally.ARPA, barnett@ut-sally.UUCP,
{ihnp4,harvard,seismo,gatech,ctvax}!ut-sally!barnettswc@cbscc.UUCP (Scott W. Collins) (08/14/85)
~ > But, to the contrary, the >design of the Enterprise seems to have completely ignored the fact >that the crew might at times have to deal with zero G. >Anyone have any speculations on the subject? >Lewis Barnett,CS Dept, Painter Hall 3.28, Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX 78712 From what I hear, the Federation only mans Starships with crew members who have magnetic personalities... Scotty (No wonder Kirk kept sticking to the metal brassiers of the women)
kevin@voder.UUCP (The Last Bugfighter) (08/15/85)
> Now why wouldn't they talk about something as mind boggling > as gravity control? And, even better, in all the times we've > seen the Enterprise badly damaged isn't it funny that the > gravity never goes out? That'd be a scene of quite some > visual impact -- everyone floating about the bridge and corridors. > > Lewis Barnett,CS Dept, Painter Hall 3.28, Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX 78712 I think you're completely overlooking reality here. Star Trek was a television series. It did not have a billion dollar budget for each show. Can you imagine the difficulty of showing everyone floating around the bridge? Remember this was 1969 and special effects of this type (like the movie `2001') were the exception, not the rule. The only time I can remember Star Trek attempting to show a weightless environment was in the episode in which a woman crewperson was taken over by nasties and Bones shoved her into this gravity/pressure chamber, `Lights Of Zetar' I think it was called. Maybe also `The Tholian Web', Kirk did some floating around in a space suit. Now the animated series showed a loss of artificial gravity on the bridge at least once, and of course the movies showed an anti-gravity sled and one person standing on an anti-gravity `step ladder'. Also Spock floating in his suit, perhaps Star Trek IV will give us something more. But a lot of interesting possibilities don't get done just because of cost. Ignoring cost for a moment, it would seem that something like an artificial gravity system would be as fool-proof as possible, perhaps even having it's own independent power source. I can't verify this but I seem to recall that in `The Making Of Star Trek' by Susan Sackett (s) and Gene Rodenberry there was a mention that the gravity field that keeps people on the decks was also partly responsible for actually holding the ship together. Maybe not to the point it would fall apart if the gravity were shut off, but at least so that the ship's maximum velocity and maneuverability would be severly limited. Perhaps someone can verify this, or flame me mercilessly if wrong. --- Kevin Thompson {ucbvax,ihnp4!nsc}!voder!kevin "It's a sort of threat, you see. I've never been very good at them myself but I'm told they can be very effective."
francis@osu-eddie.UUCP (RD Francis) (08/15/85)
> ... And, even better, in all the times we've > seen the Enterprise badly damaged isn't it funny that the > gravity never goes out? > > Anyone have any speculations on the subject? Actually, the gravity generator seems to be very delicate. Every time they get hit in a fight, the center of gravity of the ship shifts, and everyone gets tossed to one side of the ship or the other! RD "fozz" Francis ..!cbosgd!osu-eddie!francis or francis@osu-eddie.UUCP
marcum@sun.uucp (Alan Marcum) (08/15/85)
In article <2672@ut-sally.UUCP> barnett@ut-sally.UUCP (Lewis Barnett) writes: >Just as they moved into the barrier, he said, "Gravitation on >automatic." A bit later, one of the damage reports was, "Gravitation >down to 0.8." ... > ... And, even better, in all the times we've >seen the Enterprise badly damaged isn't it funny that the >gravity never goes out? This is probably one we can attribute to the impact of doing a television series -- especially at that time, and with the budget constraints Gene and company had. Imagine the cost and production difficulties of having the entire bridge crew floating a few feet above the deck! I agree, though, that in the "real" Star Trek universe, the designers would have planned for that. -- Alan M. Marcum Sun Microsystems, Mountain View, California ...!nsc!sun!nescorna!marcum Technical Consulting
kevin@voder.UUCP (The Last Bugfighter) (08/15/85)
I must make a correction to an earlier posting, `The Making Of Star Trek'
was written by Stephen E. Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry, not the individual
I mentioned earlier.
Also, I perused `The Making Of Star Trek' and could find no mention of
gravity control at all. Even the Star Fleet Technicle Manual (long out of
print), which goes into a lot of detail over such things as the navigational
system and orbital approaches makes no mention of gravity. There must be
some information somewhere.
---
Kevin Thompson {ucbvax,ihnp4!nsc}!voder!kevin
"It's a sort of threat, you see. I've never been very good at them
myself but I'm told they can be very effective."merchant@dartvax.UUCP (Peter Merchant) (08/16/85)
> I'm sitting here watching "Where No Man Has Gone Before," and > something Kirk said during the encounter brought to mind a point > that has bothered (or maybe amused) me for a long time. > Just as they moved into the barrier, he said, "Gravitation on > automatic." A bit later, one of the damage reports was, "Gravitation > down to 0.8." Now, the folks who gave us Star Trek seemed pretty > eager to show us all the wonderful gadgets they had come up with > in the 23rd century, such as phasers, transporters, warp drive, > etc. Now why wouldn't they talk about something as mind boggling > as gravity control? And, even better, in all the times we've > seen the Enterprise badly damaged isn't it funny that the > gravity never goes out? That'd be a scene of quite some . . . > to have planned for the possibility. But, to the contrary, the > design of the Enterprise seems to have completely ignored the fact > that the crew might at times have to deal with zero G. > > Anyone have any speculations on the subject? > > > Lewis Barnett,CS Dept, Painter Hall 3.28, Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX 78712 > Hmm...well, let's see. Perhaps the Enterprise itself creates the gravity? I'm no physicist, but from what I half-remember from such things if you have enough mass you have gravity. Let's see...would anti-matter have lots of mass? How about the ship itself (I know, I know, the Enterprise isn't THAT big) Perhaps, though, the antimatter is causing enough gravity to keep everyone secured to the ground so that only small "gravity machines" are needed to keep the gravity at full. Even if these machines are blown up, gravity will only go down to, say, .8? Which means unless the Enterprise loses all it's antimatter, it will continue to have gravity. I'm sure there are holes in this theory big enough to drive a starship through. C'mon, though! You never saw a loss of gravity! Let's get some scientists to figure out how to do it so that the only way to ding the gravity is to destroy the starship. (Actually, the reason that the gravity never left is probably because it would have been too difficult/expensive to show.) -- "Don't be fooled by the radio Peter Merchant the TV or the magazine."
barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin) (08/18/85)
Well, I am not going to speculate on how the artificial gravity works.
However, the film Enterprise (as opposed to the TV show ship) seems to
have provision for loss of gravity. The seats have armrests that can
fold down to hold the person to the chair. This acts like a safety belt
during turbulence or battle, but it seems to me that it would also hold
one to one's seat when in 0-g. The former purpose is demonstrated at
some point in Star Trek: The Motionless Picture. I remember that the
publicity about the redesign of the Enterprise for the films made a big
deal about this safety feature, as many fans had commented that it was
silly that bridge personnel always got thrown out of their seats during
the crucial moments of a battle. I think they forgot about this feature
when they made the other ST films, as people got thrown left and right
just as in the TV series.
--
Barry Margolin
ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics
UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmarraiche@dartvax.UUCP (George A. Raiche) (08/19/85)
> > I must make a correction to an earlier posting, `The Making Of Star Trek' > was written by Stephen E. Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry, not the individual > I mentioned earlier. > Also, I perused `The Making Of Star Trek' and could find no mention of > gravity control at all. Even the Star Fleet Technicle Manual (long out of > print), which goes into a lot of detail over such things as the navigational > system and orbital approaches makes no mention of gravity. There must be > some information somewhere. > > --- > Kevin Thompson {ucbvax,ihnp4!nsc}!voder!kevin > > "It's a sort of threat, you see. I've never been very good at them > myself but I'm told they can be very effective." *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR rubber walls! *** I believe that in "The World of Star Trek", David Gerrold discusses why the crew doesn't get turned into "brown slime" every time Enterprise goes to warp drive. He also asks why the gravity never goes out. It's in the chapters that he's pussing on the series. I also seem to recall a discussion of why Enterprise seens to have lots of power problems, considering the power available from the matter/antimatter drive. George Raiche Dept. of Chemistry Dartmouth "Aye, and if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon."
barnett@ut-sally.UUCP (Lewis Barnett) (08/20/85)
> I think you're completely overlooking reality here. Star Trek was a > television series. It did not have a billion dollar budget for each show. Yes, I realize that cost was the overriding reason for not showing an actual failure of the gravity generators. I don't think invalidates the point concerning designing for possible zero gee conditions, however. > Now the animated series showed a loss of artificial gravity on the bridge > at least once, Heaven knows I tried, but I could never get all the way through an animated episode. > and of course the movies showed an anti-gravity sled and one > person standing on an anti-gravity `step ladder'. Also Spock floating in > his suit, perhaps Star Trek IV will give us something more. > Ignoring cost for a moment, it would seem that something like an artificial > gravity system would be as fool-proof as possible, perhaps even having it's > own independent power source. > --- > Kevin Thompson {ucbvax,ihnp4!nsc}!voder!kevin > The movies did have humongous budgets, and state of the art special effects. And they also had battles in which the Enterprise was damaged far more seriously than in any of the TV episodes. Sure, the gravity generator would be as sturdy and well-protected as possible, but nothing is totally foolproof. But, I guess if they had taken all of this into consideration, our heroes would have wound up on the Nostromo. Or something. Lewis Barnett,CS Dept, Painter Hall 3.28, Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX 78712 -- barnett@ut-sally.ARPA, barnett@ut-sally.UUCP, {ihnp4,harvard,seismo,gatech,ctvax}!ut-sally!barnett