Starship Enterprise (TNG version) - landable on Earth?

[vger]

I don't remember ever noticing Star Trek ships undergoing a process of acceleration (expect in Voyager when they try that warp 10 thing). They accelerate instantaneously, or as good as.

Yeah, though a lot of that seems dependent upon what era of film/TV you're talking about. Respect for the mass of a ship on the part of special effects teams seems to have had a steady decline for quite a while.

Generally though, impulse is traditional acceleration. Warp is more or less instantaneous. I think the only reason for not accelerating from sub-light to warp-whatever instantaneously, is the risk of tearing the ship apart.

[Shpaget]

But they have inertial dampeners. If they can act on crew, they can act on ship itself, right?

[G'th]

Well, the thing about Impulse is that it allows for travel fast enough to cover our solar system in a matter of hours (if not minutes IIRC) while not being as power intensive as warp, and not to mention safer in the vicinity of planets. And yes, the inertial dampeners do keep the crew safe. However, what keeps the ship together is the structural integrity field, which is essentially Trek-tech which does exactly what it says. The ships themselves are actually pretty fragile, even by sci-fi standards.

There's a reason why a Federation ship will take a torpedo hit and could lose an entire deck whereas an Klingon vessel will just lose some structural integrity.

So, impulse at relatively low levels would be enough to get pretty much any ship to space back, but the biggest issue is simply keeping the ship itself together. The SIF will keep the ship together in space, but once you bring it down the ground you can't necessarily keep the engines going, and thats where a lot of the power for the SIF comes from. And not only that, from what I can remember the SIF itself still likely won't be enough, as I doubt it can counteract simple gravity when combined with the rather space-centric construction. The field would essentially have to be able to support the weight of the saucer section while still maintaining integrity elsewhere.

That all being said, this is Star Trek we're talking about. Put Scotty or Jordi on it and they'll tell you how to do it in about 20 minutes. A likely plan would be a slow descent into the atmosphere with auxiliary power diverted to help maintain the weak point in the neck area of the ship, with a landing either in water or on a specially constructed apparatus that can both support the weight of the ship (without damaging it) and either augment or override the SIF. More than likely though they wouldn't even actually "land" the Enterprise but actually just have it hover above the ground and then tether it up to whatever apparatus they can get a hold of that will help augment the ships power.

[Dark Junior]

Does anyone else think landing the Enterprise is a MUCH worse idea than shuttles and beaming?

Just me?

[Yukon0009]

Well, it has no landing legs, sooo...

How could it land?

Lithobraking

[Nuke]

should also point out that star trek has anti-gravity cracked. you only need to put out enough thrust to counteract drag and once out of the atmosphere go to full impulse or warp.

Does anyone else think landing the Enterprise is a MUCH worse idea than shuttles and beaming?

Just me?

yep, a lot of energy to land a ship of that mass. at least when compared to to a shuttle or a transporter.

Edited October 18, 2015 by Nuke

[Technical Ben]

*sarcastically* oh no, i think that can fly again. It just has a few,dents.

I really need to get writing the scifi fiction where I actually do that. I have "plot armour" of a reasonable kind for it. But I'm planning on crash landing a giant saucer, then having it recovered decades later. I however have no realistic reason why something that large could fly.

I've planned out the saucers for the fiction already, but only chapter 1 written up

http://techy-ben.deviantart.com/art/Saucers-Ref-110550985

A bit more on topic, the Voyager could land. The latest Star Trek movie has the original enterprise made in a dry dock on land. Which is rather crazy and yet another thing that spoilt the movie IMO.

Theoretically transporters require infinite power. So landing a ship would be more resourceful use if in an emergency, you've nothing left by a tiny bit of juice.

Edited October 18, 2015 by Technical Ben

[problemecium]

I however have no realistic reason why something that large could fly.

[offtopic]

Try putting a superconductor in the outer part of the hull, either as a circular array or a ring. When the ship spins in a magnetic field (like Earth's), it generates current through induction. Since superconductors are diamagnetic, they repel any and all magnetic fields, so if you can generate a powerful enough effect, the saucer will push itself away from the planet and thus hover.

Tough to engineer and to control, but entirely possible for an advanced species.

[/offtopic]

[pincushionman]

I can't claim to be a Trekkie, but I did see Generations (where the scene in question was from), and it should be obvious to everyone who watched it the saucer section was less landed and more ditched. At the end of the film, the crew was being recovered by a fleet of other ships, not flying it off again, and in its "next" appearance (First Contact), it was a new ship, not a salvaged saucer section mated to a new stardrive.

I also had the Technical Manual (not "canon" per se, but it was written by Michael Okuda), and while I don't remember whether the saucer section was said to be atmosphere-capable in terms of flying (body lift maybe?) there were clearly no provisions for landing. First, there were no gear, and second, the main engines were all on the aft edge - unless the maneuvering thrusters described elsewhere were absolutely insane (which, given the other technology magic described in the series, is not out of the question), if the ship is on the ground, it's pretty much hosed.

[KerbMav]

Does anyone else think landing the Enterprise is a MUCH worse idea than shuttles and beaming?

Just me?

This was exactly the point that made Gene Roddenberry come up with the idea of the transporter and beaming in the first place.

(Citation needed, I know, but not for me, I know what I read! )

The latest Star Trek movie has the original enterprise made in a dry dock on land. Which is rather crazy and yet another thing that spoilt the movie IMO.

The really latest Star Trek movie ("The Wrath of Sherlock") had the entire ship submerged in the ocean of an alien planet and fly to space agein in virtually no time.

Theoretically transporters require infinite power. So landing a ship would be more resourceful use if in an emergency, you've nothing left by a tiny bit of juice.

I also had the Technical Manual (not "canon" per se, but it was written by Michael Okuda), and while I don't remember whether the saucer section was said to be atmosphere-capable in terms of flying (body lift maybe?) there were clearly no provisions for landing. First, there were no gear, and second, the main engines were all on the aft edge - unless the maneuvering thrusters described elsewhere were absolutely insane (which, given the other technology magic described in the series, is not out of the question), if the ship is on the ground, it's pretty much hosed.

The Manual had a page dedicated to the emergency landing capabilities of the saucer section.

Flying inside the atmosphere is possible to a certain degree - TNG episode "The Arsenal of Freedom" had them lure a cloaked weapon drone into the atmosphere of a planet to target the atmospheric distortions - TOS episode "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" has the Enterprise enter the upper atmosphere (and well in visual range for 1960s fighter aircrafts) - in both cases the ship itself made it clear (with the usual klaxons and flashy lights) that it does not wish to stay there for very long.

So, no, the Galaxy Class cannot land in the original sense of the word, but is able to crash land its saucer section relatively safe for the crew to make it a viable last resort in emergencies. (And wow, you can even use the hull as a refuge! )

J.J.-Trek gets some leeway, but real trek canon should be based on the old TV shows IMHO.

[Randazzo]

I cannot cite any reference for this, but I recall an interview/feature/documentary, in which the transporter versus landing (TOS era) was discussed. While Star Trek revolves around a great deal of fiction and convoluted faux-science, this was due to a very real consideration that plagues many productions: The Budget.

It was far, far cheaper to use the transporter effects than it was to shoot a landing sequence each week.

So there's an anecdote from the darkest corners of my brain.

Edit: It's actually in the Wiki entry, but I'm just now reading it there. I'm guessing what I saw was The Making of Star Trek

Edited October 22, 2015 by Randazzo

[Shpaget]

I remember some interview which said that the shuttle model was not ready when the sequence was scheduled to be filmed, so somebody just said something along the lines of "Hey, it's future, let's just make them appear magically on the planet."