The Star Trek Shield Impact Effect... WITHOUT Inertial Dampeners...

[Spacescifi]

Scenario: We have a scifi starship (which has a mass of 350 tons) that has surrounded itself with a scifi halo bubble like shield (halo boundary is visible but all else inside is clear and transparent as if the shield was not there even though it is).  The starship is hovering in the sky on Earth and an Earth attack aircraft launches a modern USA tactical nuclear missile at it.

Upon impact the air around the ship goes up in flames briefly before becoming shockwave shaped clouds.

When the clouds clear up a bit the starship is shown to be floating backwards some distance from the sheer inertia of being hit by a nuclear air blast. Shield is still up because it held.

Factors to consider: It is common in Star Trek for scifi Captains (especially Picard) to stand around and talk on the bridge (the starship control/command room). The difference here is this starship does NOT have scifi inertial dampeners. Which means inertia will be in play when the nuke impacts their shields.

The Captain is standing in front of the view screen while scoffing at the incoming missile inbetween taking sips from his coffee mug, He has no idea it's a nuke. The ship, the crew, and it's Captain are facing a head on collision with a nuclear tipped missile.

What happens when it hits? My guess is he gets thrown into the view screen and spills coffee all over the carpet.

The crew get thrown to the ground if not holding on to anything.

Few if any die but there are some injuries.

 

Edit: Or maybe the inertia push from the nuclear blast would not be so bad? After all the starship weighs 350 tons, so although the nuke will provide some push via the blast, it may not be enough to impress the Captain. At most maybe spill his coffee and that's it lol?

 

Or not? Your thoughts?

 

 

[FleshJeb]

The Captain, being well-qualified for her position, prudently chooses to dodge. Because what kind of gorram idiot would be willing to take ANY kind of impact when they don't have inertial dampeners, and the Engineering Department has not provided the specifications for the elasticity of the shields.

Of note, the AIM-26A (250 t TNT equivalent) was retired in 1972, and the AIR-2 Genie (1.5 kt) in 1985.

Now I know sci-fi is terrible about using realistic masses, but 350 tons?!? That's less than a 747 airliner. This is 328 tons and has a crew of 28. It's teeny:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone-class_patrol_ship

[Spacescifi]

28 minutes ago, FleshJeb said:

The Captain, being well-qualified for her position, prudently chooses to dodge. Because what kind of gorram idiot would be willing to take ANY kind of impact when they don't have inertial dampeners, and the Engineering Department has not provided the specifications for the elasticity of the shields.

Of note, the AIM-26A (250 t TNT equivalent) was retired in 1972, and the AIR-2 Genie (1.5 kt) in 1985.

Now I know sci-fi is terrible about using realistic masses, but 350 tons?!? That's less than a 747 airliner. This is 328 tons and has a crew of 28. It's teeny:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone-class_patrol_ship

Wow. So I guess even if the scifi starship was 500 tons dodging would still be prudent... if possible. Otherwise she should sit down and put on a seatbelt while riding out the whiplash.

Ouch... survived but still hurts.

[Terwin]

Without magical inertial dampening(probably an instant reverse gravity effect to counter any impacts, or just a low-level warp effect that dampens inertia directly), you risk having your entire crew being turned to goo any time you pass too close to a nebula at warp speed(or pass through any other significant change in the density of the interstellar medium).

This sort of effect would be needed for any sort of super-luminal travel that passes through real space.

Edited Friday at 03:55 PM by Terwin

[Spacescifi]

8 minutes ago, Terwin said:

Without magical inertial dampening(probably an instant reverse gravity effect to counter any impacts, or just a low-level warp effect that dampens inertia directly), you risk having your entire crew being turned to goo any time you pass too close to a nebula at warp speed(or pass through any other significant change in the density of the interstellar medium).

This sort of effect would be needed for any sort of super-luminal travel that passes through real space.

I was about to mention hyperspace, subspace, or exospace drives, none of which travel through normal space, but you specified real space so good on you.

For very short periods high g force is survivable. Stlll I would not recommend warping near the sun at light speed, as it is 3 light seconds wide (I think) and the surface gravity is 27g. So anything near that would be injurious or even lethal.

[magnemoe]

11 hours ago, FleshJeb said:

The Captain, being well-qualified for her position, prudently chooses to dodge. Because what kind of gorram idiot would be willing to take ANY kind of impact when they don't have inertial dampeners, and the Engineering Department has not provided the specifications for the elasticity of the shields.

Of note, the AIM-26A (250 t TNT equivalent) was retired in 1972, and the AIR-2 Genie (1.5 kt) in 1985.

Now I know sci-fi is terrible about using realistic masses, but 350 tons?!? That's less than a 747 airliner. This is 328 tons and has a crew of 28. It's teeny:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone-class_patrol_ship

This note this is an patrol craft, you could get much larger missiles on an smaller ship at the expense of range and seaworthiness.  
I assume spaceships would be heavier because they need to carry more fuel and reaction mass.  Now you could escape lots of the problems is the shield generator could move relatively to the ship. 
Just have it suspended from all directions around the center of mass, probably with an focus on front or aft. 
None thought of this like The Mote in God's Eye or the follow up who had massive battles with shields and nukes, including fighting inside an red giant star  
But no thought of the momentum from the blasts. Read one book with an sort of stasis field  bubble who was used as an orion drive.  

 

[RCgothic]

The Enterprise D canonically weighs 4.9 million metric tonnes.

An Imperial Star Destroyer is 40 million tonnes.

They're going to be hard to shift, even before accounting for nuclear devices being very very inefficient at turning their energy into momentum.

[Spacescifi]

12 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

The Enterprise D canonically weighs 4.9 million metric tonnes.

An Imperial Star Destroyer is 40 million tonnes.

They're going to be hard to shift, even before accounting for nuclear devices being very very inefficient at turning their energy into momentum.

 

True but in Star Trek they have photon torpedos (antimatter missiles) and worse (quantum torpedos.... whatever that means), both of which could have enough force to transfer momentum well.

So without inertial dampeners they would be worse off even if shields held.

[RCgothic]

I believe the theoretical maximum ISP for nuclear pulse propulsion is around 100000s. The largest weapon ever detonated was 27 metric tonnes.

Applying that in highly ideal and theoretically generous circumstances assuming a perfectly designed device to the 4.9 million metric tonnes of the Enterprise D and assuming the shields don't provide any mitigation, would kick it to about 5m/s.

The bridge crew would certainly feel that, but I think worse impacts have been delivered on screen.

There's no point getting into theoretical yields of antimatter torpedoes, they appear to be used mostly for miniaturisation of the warhead rather than increased yield. The torpedos that tore through the Reliant and Enterprise A clearly weren't megaton range.

[magnemoe]

3 hours ago, Spacescifi said:

 

True but in Star Trek they have photon torpedos (antimatter missiles) and worse (quantum torpedos.... whatever that means), both of which could have enough force to transfer momentum well.

So without inertial dampeners they would be worse off even if shields held.

Problem is that photons don't carry much momentum for their energy. Orion pulse nuclear planned to use plastic to convert the x-rays to heat and an tungsten plate to transfer momentum to ship. 

This has an historical parallel, The preferred historical weapon does cutting or stabbing, swords and spears. 
The problem is that you can not cut trough chain mail, not to talk about plate. You can stab trough chain with an sharp point but not plate unless you have an sharp point on something like an halberd. 
But you still feel an mace to your helmet so blunt weapons become popular fighting armored enemies. 
So momentum carrying charges is an option, you can mount the shield generator flexible but you can overcome this. 

[Spacescifi]

3 hours ago, RCgothic said:

I believe the theoretical maximum ISP for nuclear pulse propulsion is around 100000s. The largest weapon ever detonated was 27 metric tonnes.

Applying that in highly ideal and theoretically generous circumstances assuming a perfectly designed device to the 4.9 million metric tonnes of the Enterprise D and assuming the shields don't provide any mitigation, would kick it to about 5m/s.

The bridge crew would certainly feel that, but I think worse impacts have been delivered on screen.

There's no point getting into theoretical yields of antimatter torpedoes, they appear to be used mostly for miniaturisation of the warhead rather than increased yield. The torpedos that tore through the Reliant and Enterprise A clearly weren't megaton range.

 

 

Well the thing about Star Trek is that yields onscreen rarely match what is shown because special effects cost money that the studio did not want to spend for one reason or another. I remember a DS9 episode where Jake and Bashir were running accross a field on a planet the klingons were attacking. Suddenly they began bombarding the planet... but all I saw was two guys running across a grassy field with smoke bombs blowing up here and there.

Babylon 5 did a far better job at depicting the power scale of weapons and scifi technology even though they relied heavily on computer animation to do it which some say looks outdated today but I say still looks cooler than tiny smoke bombs.

But I digress... the thing about Star Trek vessels is they have shields within shields as it were. A starfleet vessel has an intergrity field that holds the hull together under the strain of warp or flying into the sun lol etc, so it won't tear apart like any normal mass should.

Contrast that with lower tech scifi trek races that get beat silly.

I remember that TNG episode where the crew had memory loss and was tricked into fighting a war against a less advanced race. A phaser zap or two blew up an enemy warship, and their spacebase worf pointed out could be totally destroyed with a single photon torpedo.

So you can chalk up the Reliant and Enterprise taking torpedoes to the bare hull either or both because of plot and trek scifi tech.

 

Edited Saturday at 04:25 AM by Spacescifi

[boriz]

 

7 hours ago, Spacescifi said:

Babylon 5 did a far better job at depicting the power scale of weapons and scifi technology even though they relied heavily on computer animation to do it which some say looks outdated today but I say still looks cooler than tiny smoke bombs.

I'm watching remastered B5 right now. Part way through series 2. Great TV. Far better than anything we have now, unfortunately. Harlan Ellison's influence was a factor. (He wrote A Boy And His Dog, I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream, and one of the best TOS stories ever, The City On The Edge Of Forever).

Energy shields, inertial dampers, artificial gravity, transporter beams, warp drives, phaser beams, all fantasy sci-fi tech with no real-world physics. Without a real scientific basis, your opinion is just as good as anyone's. Have at it friend. Nowadays, even the writers seem to have no clue and are, to be generous, inconsistent. They are exploiting the genius of Gene Roddenberry in any way they can. Creating something original, like Roddenberry, seems to be beyond TV exec's at the moment, sadly.

Personally, I imagine that any energy, kinetic or otherwise, gets splashed/deflected, and distributed around the shield. So that what was a concentrated point of energy is spread around a much larger area. Like this:

The ship moves (or rocks, which is common) because although the energy is now much more diffuse, the shield generators transmit the residual to the hull. But that's just how I rationalise Chekov and Sulu gripping their desk while leaning left and right : )

I speak in general terms. I have not watched much of new Trek, because when I do, it sucks. Ultimately, if your suspension of disbelief is broken, that's the fault of the writer/producer, don't blame yourself.

Suggestion: Try watching better written Trek.

It embarrasses the current IP holder of Trek, but the best recent Trek-like is The Orville. Before that, it was Enterprise (Intro theme notwithstanding). I suggest you test your suspension of disbelief on those.

Examples of non-Roddenberry exploitation would be Firefly and Stargate SG-1 and Farscape. All great in their own way, and although influenced by Roddenberry, proper attempts at new sci-fi writing.

I miss new sci-fi writing.

Spoiler

 

Edited Saturday at 12:18 PM by boriz

[Spacescifi]

9 hours ago, boriz said:

 

I'm watching remastered B5 right now. Part way through series 2. Great TV. Far better than anything we have now, unfortunately. Harlan Ellison's influence was a factor. (He wrote A Boy And His Dog, I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream, and one of the best TOS stories ever, The City On The Edge Of Forever).

Energy shields, inertial dampers, artificial gravity, transporter beams, warp drives, phaser beams, all fantasy sci-fi tech with no real-world physics. Without a real scientific basis, your opinion is just as good as anyone's. Have at it friend. Nowadays, even the writers seem to have no clue and are, to be generous, inconsistent. They are exploiting the genius of Gene Roddenberry in any way they can. Creating something original, like Roddenberry, seems to be beyond TV exec's at the moment, sadly.

Personally, I imagine that any energy, kinetic or otherwise, gets splashed/deflected, and distributed around the shield. So that what was a concentrated point of energy is spread around a much larger area. Like this:

The ship moves (or rocks, which is common) because although the energy is now much more diffuse, the shield generators transmit the residual to the hull. But that's just how I rationalise Chekov and Sulu gripping their desk while leaning left and right : )

I speak in general terms. I have not watched much of new Trek, because when I do, it sucks. Ultimately, if your suspension of disbelief is broken, that's the fault of the writer/producer, don't blame yourself.

Suggestion: Try watching better written Trek.

It embarrasses the current IP holder of Trek, but the best recent Trek-like is The Orville. Before that, it was Enterprise (Intro theme notwithstanding). I suggest you test your suspension of disbelief on those.

Examples of non-Roddenberry exploitation would be Firefly and Stargate SG-1 and Farscape. All great in their own way, and although influenced by Roddenberry, proper attempts at new sci-fi writing.

I miss new sci-fi writing.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

I had no idea Harlan Eliison helped inspire B5, which is truly the greatest space opera series I had ever watched.

As for my suspension of disbelief, that really is not a problem for me... I just have fun analyzing and learning what happens when brutal real physics collide with fiction and more often than not it seems, real physics wins out.

I also agree current Trek is mostly... dreck. Although a parody, I have heard that even Lower Decks is at leaat closer to classic Star Trek than the abominations that shall not be named full of gore, crying, and political pandering.

But beyond that I also entertainment at large is at risk of lower quality im the future because the bew generation is the stuck on their phone use AI generation.

Some will rise above and prosper as usual, but it will be all too easy for the rest to wallow and promote flashy content that caters to polarizing views.

[RCgothic]

Star Trek has never not been highly allegorical.

[Spacescifi]

2 hours ago, RCgothic said:

Star Trek has never not been highly allegorical.

That's true, but I guess what I am saying is the modern offerings are inferior to the past because characters act so. .. well less Star Trek like? Unprofessional? Immature? It's ike they took Gene Roddenberry's utopia dream and said "Nah man... that's not dramatic or grungy like the future we want."

Star Trek was not Disney's Marvel or Star Wars..  it was more... intellectual among other things besides being allegorical. Today's trek is often shallow or just on the nose.

[RCgothic]

TOS season 3 is widely regarded as terrible.

Neither the social philosophy nor the quality of writing has meaningfully changed.

[Terwin]

Don't forget Sturgeon's law.

Only the best of the best survives the dust-bin of history.

[FleshJeb]

On 2/1/2025 at 7:18 AM, Spacescifi said:

caters to polarizing views

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirk_and_Uhura's_kiss

[55delta]

From my dusty recollections of The Physics Of Star Trek and ST:NG Technical Manual (and elsewhere), the entire purpose of those inertial dampeners is to keep the the crew from getting killed whenever the ship accelerates to speed (be it a fraction of the speed of light or beyond it.) They're more something to enable faster space travel than a defensive system. Also, I'm told, the response time of the inertial dampeners is 60 milliseconds, and I'm sure there's plenty of examples of crews in the shows getting thrown 'a few feet.'

I know this doesn't mean anything for a more generic setting, where you might change how the inertial dampeners work, change what their purpose is supposed to be, how much kinetic energy the shields are supposed to absorb or counter, and if there are other systems on the ship to cushion or worsen the effects.

Edited 8 hours ago by 55delta