• Multiplexer@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    20 hours ago

    I never understood the “divert power from life support” trope of Star Trek.

    I mean, how much power could that possibly be?

    We essentially already sustained prolonged life support by using a tiny batch of primitive batteries and fuels cells during multi-day trips to reach the moon in the sixties.

    With efficient 23th century tech, life support should be almost self-sustaining using ambient waste heat or something.

    Always has been one of the major suspension-of-disbelief efforts for me…

    • Plastic_Ramses@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      16 hours ago

      There is an episode where Voyager is looking for a fuel source because they are dangerously low.

      They cram all the staff into two decks and pull all life support from the other thirteen. It only gets them an hour of propulsion at one-quarter impulse thrust.

      • Multiplexer@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        It only gets them an hour of propulsion at one-quarter impulse thrust.

        Which is basically classical atomic sublight rocket tech.
        So some additional ability to just coast between planets when you are already in a star system.

    • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 @pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Air-conditioning is pretty power intensive and The Enterprise is a big ass ship. That’s not even counting the other things life support does (like heat and CO2 scrubbing), just the air circulation.

      But even on the show, there’s been a couple times where they mention the power from life support is nearly negligible. 🤷‍♂️

      • skribe@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        19 hours ago

        Wouldn’t gravity generation and inertial dampners be part of life support? Going max impulse after turning those off is likely to end up with a lot of raspberry jam coating the walls.

        • Inertial dampeners probably not; that just stops the ship when not giving any thust because there’s nothing to slow the ship down in space once it has momentum. The fake gravity on board tho, may be part of it. Not sure how the gravity plating is supposed to work; but I would be willing to bet there is technical documentation about it somewhere. Unless they just, like… Constantly barrel roll to create “gravity” that way 🤔 (gravity in quotes as it would actually be centripital force).

          • alpine_jim@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            19
            ·
            edit-2
            17 hours ago

            Inertial dampers are how the crew can survive high-g maneuvers, they’d be pinned to the back wall and have their skulls crushed by their own faces if they suddenly went to full impulse or warp without them active.

          • GraniteM@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            18 hours ago

            I’m pretty well convinced that gravity plating has to be negligible power draw or possibly even passive technology, since they’ve boarded centuries-old derelict ships that still have artificial gravity. Maybe the gravity plating contains some exotic space-warping material that generates a gravity field. That could also explain the times when someone becomes intangible and can walk through walls, but don’t fall through the floor.

      • marcos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        19 hours ago

        Air-conditioning is pretty power intensive

        And then, when life support fails everybody freezes for some reason.

      • Multiplexer@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Air-conditioning is pretty power intensive

        Even that should still be minuscle compared to getting rid of the waste heat from a huge antimatter reactor.
        Feels like trying to get your Ferrari faster by switching of the cockpit instrument illumination. Not even worth giving the command.

        • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          19 hours ago

          How does transferring heat out of a ship work? On the one hand, it’s really cold in space, but on the other, there’s no substrate to absorb and transfer the heat.

          • Multiplexer@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            19 hours ago

            From a thermodynamical standpoint, the whole Enterprise is something of a mess.

            But, hey, if you already have a “Heisenberg-Compensator”, also having a “Boltzmann-Compensator” is probably not that implausible… ;-)

              • alpine_jim@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                17 hours ago

                It is, yes. A large fraction (about a quarter?) of what looks like solar panels on the ISS are actually dedicated radiator panels. The solar panels are angled to face the sun, and the radiators are angled at 90 degrees from the sun, to face empty space.

              • plantfanatic@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                16 hours ago

                Inefficient is maybe the right word? If you have more stuff to absorb the radiation I believe you can transfer it faster. So maybe tethering and tossing asteroids or something could be viable?

    • Melllvar@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Moreover, what exactly is the life support system doing that means near-instant death if you turn it off? Breathable air and heat should last for hours at least.

      • Multiplexer@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Exactly.
        Not only is the power requirement pretty low in comparison, but the system should also show a really sluggish response, especially when considering the sheer air volume of the Enterprise.
        Biggest issue would probably be heat buildup after some time

      • Multiplexer@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        19 hours ago

        It’s just written in to add weight to a tense moment.

        I know the reason why they did it.

        Still annoys me slightly. Actually even more than the techno-babble that is mentioned by most as a somewhat annoying thing written in.

        But I don’t watch Star Trek for its scientific accuracy, so it’s ok.

        As already said: It is still manageable by suspension of disbelief to enjoy the strong aspects of the show, which mostly are not the specifics of the science-based things being shown (in contrast to the underlying ideas - those are often great!)

        • 13igtyme@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          19 hours ago

          I realize now I should have answered the question differently. The life support uses power by a reverse band of takiyons to a flow emitter. This then spread across the ship via a neutrino wave to a tungsten pulse generator.

          That’s why it uses so much power they have to divert it at times.

          • Multiplexer@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            19 hours ago

            My own head-canon that I subconsciously develop while watching those parts of the show, is actually strikingly similar to what you just said! ;-)

    • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      15 hours ago

      “Why can’t we route power from gravitational engines?”

      “The show’s budget cannae afford such excess, Cap’n”

      “What’s that, Scotty?”

      “The- uh- the dilithium core only works properly in a gravity field, Cap’n. We’d lose more power than we’d save.”

      “Ah yes, that makes sense”

    • Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      13 hours ago

      The artificial gravity is a byproduct of the inertial dampeners. You don’t mess with the inertial dampeners unless you want the crew the slam into a bulkhead at .999C.

    • Thebeardedsinglemalt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      13 hours ago

      They could, because grav plating holds a residual charge so they’ll be able to maintain gravity for a period of time before people start floating

          • Kojichan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            15 hours ago

            My old 2008 Ford Focus was like that. Really weird. Guess it was just harder on the system. Ah well. It’s in a better place now

            • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 hours ago

              Economy cars don’t have a lot of spare horse power and the AC isn’t free to run. Combine that with poor maintain, that’s even less to work with. I can’t tell you how many otherwise technical people I know who don’t think to change their engine’s air filter.

            • Damage@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              ·
              14 hours ago

              It’s not weird at all, it’s actually normal. You’re running a compressor alongside your transmission when you turn on A/C. Modern systems are more efficient but there’s no such thing as free energy, it will still have an effect, especially on fuel efficiency.

              • Kojichan@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                12 hours ago

                Ahahah! I wish. I had to sell it for scrap. The bottom was all rusted, and the frame was slightly bent. It kept leaking moisture inside.

                The stereo sounded amazing though, for a stock one.

                • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 hours ago

                  I don’t actually think that the scrap yard is a better place than your home/where you parked it. At least I hope for your sake it isn’t 😄

  • quediuspayu@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    20 hours ago

    That bridge is huge it would take hours or days for them to suffocate, also, how power hungry is that life support system that often is enough to make a difference? Do they use replicators instead of fans?

    • WagnasT@piefed.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      19 hours ago

      I assume since they are on a ship for several years that life support also handles bio waste, CO2 scrubbing, and anything else to keep the ship habitable. It would probably still be negligible but maybe rearranging molecules takes a fuckload of power, idk.