Hypothetical Starfleet ship roles

[Deepcrush]

You'd never stick me on a sitters run. I want solid earth under my boots.

Note also that I said you could put an infantry platoon into Picard's quarters in comfort. You could probably fit that many in most of the cabins we see in more cramped conditions.

Fuck comfort... I'd settle for a place to sleep that isn't made out of rocks...

Sleep is the happy place.

[Tsukiyumi]

f**k comfort... I'd settle for a place to sleep that isn't made out of rocks...

Amen.

[Deepcrush]

Thats why fall is so great. Just pack leaves by the ton under you. Greatest thing on earth. Plus, they're really warm.

[Sonic Glitch]

This debate jumped forward about 5 pages since I was last online so I apologize if what I'm about to say has already been brought up or if we've moved completely past this discussion.

I do agree armor is (probably) > armor + windows, but again we've only ever had 1 incident with a window in a situation a starship normally does not get itself into. Which got me thinking, Starfleet (as we know) loves its active safety systems. It is possible with the structural integrity field in operation that the windows are in fact just as strong as the hull, but as a result of either the combat or the crash or what have you, it is possible the SIF was knocked down during the crash. So with the field operating (which it normally is), the windows are just as strong as the hull, but if the field is not operating, they are not as strong.

Also, I like the idea of windows on spaceships purely for some reason I can't quite quantify. Tho I do agree, windows on warships are not the greatest idea.

[Sionnach Glic]

I do agree armor is (probably) > armor + windows, but again we've only ever had 1 incident with a window in a situation a starship normally does not get itself into.

One incident is all we need. In, say, the aviation industry, if a possible problem is identified with an aircraft, then it is removed immediately, even if it's only caused one incident. Hell, even if it's caused no incidents it would be removed. Saying that X amount of accidents, with perhaps lethal consequences, must occur before the problem must be rectified is foolish.

Which got me thinking, Starfleet (as we know) loves its active safety systems. It is possible with the structural integrity field in operation that the windows are in fact just as strong as the hull, but as a result of either the combat or the crash or what have you, it is possible the SIF was knocked down during the crash. So with the field operating (which it normally is), the windows are just as strong as the hull, but if the field is not operating, they are not as strong.

That doesn't work either. Let me give a very simplified explaination:

Let's say the hull of a ship has a strength of 100. Now let's say the window has 95 strength.
Now let's factor in the SIF. We'll say it has a strength of 100.
As can clearly be seen, a disparity still exists between the strength of the windowed area and the hull. The hull is now 200 strength, while the window is just 195. While that may not seem like much of a liability, it can mean the difference between an area of the ship withstanding a barrage and the entire section decompressing.

The only other alternative is to increase power to the SIFs protecting the windows. But that's just a waste of power for no real reason, and the last thing you want to be doing in combat is to be expending energy on trivial matters.

Also, I like the idea of windows on spaceships purely for some reason I can't quite quantify. Tho I do agree, windows on warships are not the greatest idea.

If the ship is a pasenger liner, or an exploration vessel, or some other similar type of ship, then I agree with you that I'd probably toss a few windows on it. But on a warship they're foolish and needless.

[Sonic Glitch]

Which got me thinking, Starfleet (as we know) loves its active safety systems. It is possible with the structural integrity field in operation that the windows are in fact just as strong as the hull, but as a result of either the combat or the crash or what have you, it is possible the SIF was knocked down during the crash. So with the field operating (which it normally is), the windows are just as strong as the hull, but if the field is not operating, they are not as strong.

That doesn't work either. Let me give a very simplified explaination:

Let's say the hull of a ship has a strength of 100. Now let's say the window has 95 strength.
Now let's factor in the SIF. We'll say it has a strength of 100.
As can clearly be seen, a disparity still exists between the strength of the windowed area and the hull. The hull is now 200 strength, while the window is just 195. While that may not seem like much of a liability, it can mean the difference between an area of the ship withstanding a barrage and the entire section decompressing.

The only other alternative is to increase power to the SIFs protecting the windows. But that's just a waste of power for no real reason, and the last thing you want to be doing in combat is to be expending energy on trivial matters.

And yet.. it seems like something Starfleet would do. I always figured the SIF is used to ensure that all of the hull has the same strength. It seems like the ships almost always (during normal operations) have power to spare. I'm not saying it's the most intelligent thing to do, merely that it is something Starfleet may do.

Also, I like the idea of windows on spaceships purely for some reason I can't quite quantify. Tho I do agree, windows on warships are not the greatest idea.

If the ship is a pasenger liner, or an exploration vessel, or some other similar type of ship, then I agree with you that I'd probably toss a few windows on it. But on a warship they're foolish and needless.

Fair point.

[Mikey]

FC seemed to have the most logical compromise - the "window" which Picard shoed Lilly was in fact an aperture covered by a force field, which may be closed off by a blast door. While having that aperture would still be weaker than a solid bulkhead, it's a preferable situation than having a permanent window with a weaker material than the hull.

[Sionnach Glic]

And yet.. it seems like something Starfleet would do. I always figured the SIF is used to ensure that all of the hull has the same strength. It seems like the ships almost always (during normal operations) have power to spare. I'm not saying it's the most intelligent thing to do, merely that it is something Starfleet may do.

It probably is what Starfleet does. But the main point of my argument, which you seem to agree with, is that it's dumb.

[Deepcrush]

Just because they do or don't do something doesn't make it right. It just makes it their choice.

[Coalition]

FC seemed to have the most logical compromise - the "window" which Picard shoed Lilly was in fact an aperture covered by a force field, which may be closed off by a blast door. While having that aperture would still be weaker than a solid bulkhead, it's a preferable situation than having a permanent window with a weaker material than the hull.

I'd compare the thickness of the blast door compared to the hull it is mounted in. Not to mention the fact that the blast door slid up means that the hull above (and a little around) would be weakened. I don't know enough to say if the blast 'door' would be stronger than a window. I'll bet that location was used for physically moving stuff in and out of the ship, thus the actual opening.

Now what would have been sneaky would have been going to a local mechanical engineering college for a few designers, grab a few welders, and make this giant (hollow) chunk of metal that is hydraulically shoved into place. Include actual hydraulics, then hide all that behind the various soft covers that ST seems to have. For payment, let the designers/welders be nameless extras in the movie, and possibly get autographs of the main cast.

In the movie, Picard would press a button, you'd see a few flashing lights as it retracted, then Picard reaches out and touches the force field. Viewers get the impression that the hole does have to exist, but it is protected.

[Mikey]

I'd compare the thickness of the blast door compared to the hull it is mounted in. Not to mention the fact that the blast door slid up means that the hull above (and a little around) would be weakened. I don't know enough to say if the blast 'door' would be stronger than a window.

Fair enough.

I'll bet that location was used for physically moving stuff in and out of the ship, thus the actual opening.

It was in an awkward location between decks for that, and the aperture was rather small for that.

Now what would have been sneaky would have been going to a local mechanical engineering college for a few designers, grab a few welders, and make this giant (hollow) chunk of metal that is hydraulically shoved into place. Include actual hydraulics, then hide all that behind the various soft covers that ST seems to have. For payment, let the designers/welders be nameless extras in the movie, and possibly get autographs of the main cast.

In the movie, Picard would press a button, you'd see a few flashing lights as it retracted, then Picard reaches out and touches the force field. Viewers get the impression that the hole does have to exist, but it is protected.

What exactly would the point of this have been?

[Sionnach Glic]

I think he meant as a covering for the windows.

[Mikey]

Didn't the force-field/window that Picard showed Lilly already have an articulated cover?

[Sionnach Glic]

Was that a forcefield? I don't remember.
But yes, IIRC it had a sliding cover over it.

[Mikey]

Yep - when Lilly touched it, she got the little purple vibrating "just touched a force field effect" and shrieked. Picard explained to her that it was, in fact, a force field.