this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2023
23 points (96.0% liked)

Daystrom Institute

3454 readers
8 users here now

Welcome to Daystrom Institute!

Serious, in-depth discussion about Star Trek from both in-universe and real world perspectives.

Read more about how to comment at Daystrom.

Rules

1. Explain your reasoning

All threads and comments submitted to the Daystrom Institute must contain an explanation of the reasoning put forth.

2. No whinging, jokes, memes, and other shallow content.

This entire community has a “serious tag” on it. Shitposts are encouraged in Risa.

3. Be diplomatic.

Participate in a courteous, objective, and open-minded fashion. Be nice to other posters and the people who make Star Trek. Disagree respectfully and don’t gatekeep.

4. Assume good faith.

Assume good faith. Give other posters the benefit of the doubt, but report them if you genuinely believe they are trolling. Don’t whine about “politics.”

5. Tag spoilers.

Historically Daystrom has not had a spoiler policy, so you may encounter untagged spoilers here. Ultimately, avoiding online discussion until you are caught up is the only certain way to avoid spoilers.

6. Stay on-topic.

Threads must discuss Star Trek. Comments must discuss the topic raised in the original post.

Episode Guides

The /r/DaystromInstitute wiki held a number of popular Star Trek watch guides. We have rehosted them here:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

We've seen it many, many times: the ship gets into a firefight, takes a few hits, shakes around, and consoles explode (possibly taking an unfortunate ensign with them). Eventually the battle is resolved with our heroes largely intact if somewhat shaken up. If it was a particularly nasty battle, there will be signs of damage: scorches on the walls, deformed equipment, busted lights, and rocks scattered about.

All of that seems reasonable... except the rocks, which look pretty out of place in a spiffy 24th century starship. So why are they there?

top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Ah, you're talking about the ROCK-E system: Rapid Overload Conversion to Kinetic Energy. It's a safety feature. When the consoles are damaged, the exposed EPS connections would naturally send out highly energetic plasma arcs, killing anyone nearby. Instead, the safety mechanism automatically converts that energy to harmless matter and ejects it from the console.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I’ve been making that observation for at least 30 years about how Starfleet components are silicate based.

One of thoughts I’ve had over the years is that what we as see as rocks is actually the afterproduct of an internal fire suppression foam.

There’s a lot of high voltage coursing throughout consoles, what with electroplasma conduits and all, and in a battle situation with shields trying to absorb energy from impacts the danger of overload is very real. When that happens, fire suppression systems spray the inside with a rapidly hardening foam to prevent catastrophic explosions. But when the systems get inevitably overwhelmed and the console blows, the expended and hardened foam shatters, expelled like rocky debris so make room for the next level of suppression to take over. Without the foam, the explosion would have been much worse.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And what's with the electrical blowouts and explosions? There's no need to run high voltage or plasma throughout the bridge, these are control systems, it should all be low voltage computers.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

My understanding is that the "rocks" are a product of the electroplasma system being exposed to air. Whether that is some sort of coolant that is meant to seal the EPS leak in that console or some sort of EPS byproduct reacting in air, I don't remember or have a head-canon for it.

All of that said, if I form this reply into one worthy of Daystrom, then I say it is an intended safety mechanism to protect the crew against catastrophic failure of the EPS conduits.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

In the 32nd century, my headcanon is that the programmable matter is just bricking into something that looks like rock.

For the 24th century, conductive concrete as a Faraday cage and frame for the bridge modules. (…and yes conductive concrete Faraday cages exist in real life, even if they’re not quite the same shade of gray).

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Maybe they are chunks of some kind of ceramic like material.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

My thought was it being a mineral insulation like asbestos, just not horrific if you're accidentally exposed to it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What, you don't think they'd replicate a starship to be made out of concrete?

I joke, but I think that's the idea. Real-world disaster zones will have bits of concrete rubble, and the visual effects people were probably copying that. I do suppose we never see a ship being replicated, so maybe they're made the old-fashioned way and asteroid-based concrete is actually used for cost (however that's evaluated in-universe) reasons.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

My headcanon is an energy-rich but extremely sensitive and volatile material that augments their power supplies superior to any non-Starfleet tech.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

So that they have stuff to throw at Paramount+ execs.

Seriously though I've heard explanation like internal-ablative armor thrown around before; better to have the bridge crumble here and there than snap in half and dump everyone into Sagitarrius-A

load more comments
view more: next ›