wanttaja@ssc-vax.UUCP (Ronald J Wanttaja) (12/22/84)
> The concept of extremely-high-speed travel implicitly assumes a dependence > on FLAWLESS technology because there are some ship's systems that must > operate continuously, or else. Examples: > Gravity control. > Navigational deflectors. > Now of course you can have backups for these systems, but in the end the > reliability of any ship system is no greater than that of the main power. > A submarine hull doesn't need applied power to maintain integrity, and a > fission reactor (but not a fusion reactor!) will operate (all too well) > if for some reason you can't supply external power. But MATTER and > ANTIMATTER will react VIOLENTLY if they come into even MOMENTARY contact; > so if you're carrying antimatter in your ship, you MUST maintain that > bottle CONTINUOUSLY. You can shield the bottle all you want but if it > fails anyway, you turn into a glowing cloud. The bottle must operate > continually, so must have continuous power, regardless of Pentagon > policy. > And I'd hate to see what would happen to the Space Shuttle if the > engines failed three seconds after ignition. > > George Raiche I've abbreviated George's comments, for disk conservation, and... because I agree with most of them! There are a lot of items aboard Enterprise that are going to require the continuous application of power- and in the 300 years it took (will take? has taken? Dammit, I'm an engineer, not a semanticist!) to evolve space travel to the contruction of the "Constitution" class starship, I would expect the development of fail-safe non-intteruptable power supplies to also continue. They'll never be perfect, of course, but with several layers of redundancy the chance of severe damage should be fairly low. Take a look at the development of jet fighters...ejection seats, in particular. The devlopment of the "Zero-Zero" ejection seat is an example of how Fail-safe systems evolve...I knew a backseater on a F-101 who was killed when the plane flamed out on takeoff, too low for the 20MM cannon powered seat to save his life (he punched, but the chute didn't get a chance to open). Remember, your comment about "High speed travel requiring FLAWLESS technology" would have been just as true at the dawning of the air age... and we're travelling far faster with a lower fatality rate. The safety technology kept up. If a time warp opened up, and deposited the secrets of warp drive on us, and 20th Century man started building a starship, I would stay as far away from it as possible. Unless detailed designs for the safety systems were included! Enterprise is (oh gawd, here I go again) the latest of the long line of spacecraft development. We can assume the existance of passenger liners and whatnot, and therefore can assume that space travel has been developed to the point that workaday failures (power outages, etc) can be controlled (i.e., non-interruptable/backup power supplies). Remember, the current space shutte (1984, not stardate XXXX) is an experimental system, the first of its kind. I would guess the third generation of shuttle would be far less vulnerable. As per your point about the Klingons picking up the expelled antimatter safety bottle: That's a good point, too (see, if this were net.flame, I would have put down some character assassination, instead :-) ). However, it is a tactical point, not really a technological issue. The bottles could be booby trapped, or a short-ciruit included to discharge the antimatter rapidly prior to destruction by conventional means. * * * This subject is not tending to pick up too much additional input from other folks, so in lieu of suggesting net.startrek.destruct or net.startrek.georgeandrondukeitout, I'd like to suggest that George posts his rebuttal (after all, I started this) and them George and I will continue by mail, if necessary. Ron Wanttaja (ssc-vax!wanttaja) "Six drops of essence of terror (fooom!) Five drops of sinister sauce..." "When the stirrings, done, can I lick the spoon???...."