Noise on starships

[Patrick Degan]

What drives me crazy is the way the warp core is portrayed to be such a dangerous thing, but they don't follow this logic to its conclusion and make it look and sound like a dangerous thing, like the way it was portrayed in the short hypothetical story snippet I posted earlier.

There is absolutely no palpable sense of danger when people are literally within arm's reach of the warp core. You have to intellectualize it, and tell yourself that it's dangerous because you know how it's supposed to work from watching countless previous episodes. Absolutely none of the accoutrements of a dangerous volatile device are in evidence. It's not just bad logic, it's lousy filmmaking. Show, don't tell.

TOS did to an extent. The reactor itself was in a sealed-off compartment and not in Engineering Central. About the only time anyone actually attempted direct access to the core was in the episode "That Which Survives". Even in the movies, the reactor itself was at the bottom of the shaft through which the main energy conduit pierced the engine room. But why they had open-air access to that conduit instead of a sealed chamber comes down purely to style. In the movies they try making up for it by having the engine crew in radiation suits but it still made no sense. On a spaceship, you'd think the design for the reactor compartment would be the same as on a nuclear submarine.

[Stark]

As NL mentioned, it's pretty sad that a low-end show like Doctor Who can put more effort into it's single-use settings than ST put into it's single, constant setting.

[Bounty]

He doesn't need a physics text book to understand metal glowing brightly in vacuum or near vacuum, he needs to turn on a lightbulb and thing for a second about what he just witnessed.

Ah yes, I'd forgotten not all lightbulbs have noble gasses in them. What a mistake to make.

Thanks for the clarification, carry on.

[Wicked Pilot]

And as to where I got the idea that a ship's crew (including the engineers) have to know their ship and their jobs to deal with any emergency that might crop up, that would be the United States Navy. To quote from the 1944 Bluejackets' Manual:

General drills develop teamwork so that every department, every division, every section and every man knows and does exactly what must be done in every emergency. Lack of teamwork causes confusion and inefficiency and courts disaster. The highly mechanical nature of the modern fighting ship makes it a necessity that the crew be well-organized and prepared for all eventualities by knowing where to go, what to do, from whom to take orders and how to cooperate with the various other units of the ship.

It's necessary to be able to plug the hole or put out the fire through sheer training experience, so yes you're absolutely right. But you're arguing over the tip of the iceberg, and I'm telling you there's way more underneath then you obviously can imagine.

[Isolder74]

He doesn't need a physics text book to understand metal glowing brightly in vacuum or near vacuum, he needs to turn on a lightbulb and thing for a second about what he just witnessed.

Ah yes, I'd forgotten not all lightbulbs have noble gasses in them. What a mistake to make.

Thanks for the clarification, carry on.

They use noble gasses because they behave chemically like a vacuum without the expense of making one. You fill the space with krypton and you get extra light to boot. Why not use it?

[Patrick Degan]

And as to where I got the idea that a ship's crew (including the engineers) have to know their ship and their jobs to deal with any emergency that might crop up, that would be the United States Navy. To quote from the 1944 Bluejackets' Manual:

General drills develop teamwork so that every department, every division, every section and every man knows and does exactly what must be done in every emergency. Lack of teamwork causes confusion and inefficiency and courts disaster. The highly mechanical nature of the modern fighting ship makes it a necessity that the crew be well-organized and prepared for all eventualities by knowing where to go, what to do, from whom to take orders and how to cooperate with the various other units of the ship.

It's necessary to be able to plug the hole or put out the fire through sheer training experience, so yes you're absolutely right. But you're arguing over the tip of the iceberg, and I'm telling you there's way more underneath then you obviously can imagine.

I've already told you that I know how complicated an engineer's job actually is. You started this by trying to argue that in a critical situation the crew would have the time to flip through manuals and would be doing so while the ship is under fire, and that doesn't happen —not if the crew hope to save their ship before it and all aboard are lost.

[vivftp]

I dunno how much it matters, but I might point out in the DS9 episode One Little Ship O'Brian when shrunk to maybe a centimeter tall and walking around inside the circuitry of the Defiant he showed that he had the entire layout completely memorized. When he and Bashir were lost, they picked some random components they were standing near as a reference point and O'Brian was able to use that to get them to the desired location after giving it some thought.

It of course doesn't prove he has the entire ship memorized down to every circuit, but I guess it does at least show the level of knowledge they have of their systems.

[Wicked Pilot]

I've already told you that I know how complicated an engineer's job actually is. You started this by trying to argue that in a critical situation the crew would have the time to flip through manuals and would be doing so while the ship is under fire, and that doesn't happen —not if the crew hope to save their ship before it and all aboard are lost.

Excuse me but who the hell do you think you are to lecture me, a professional military aviatior, with 700+ hours flight time, who's handled multiple inflight emergencies, a few of which were in combat environments, about how engineers and other crew members operate in these situations? List your fucking qualifications, though I doubt you have any, or shut the hell up. And daddy and some overly simplistic 62 year old Navy manual are not qualifications nor adequate sources. I've got a binder in my office containing multiple safety reports involving real people who are dead now because they made the same mistakes you're making.

[Broomstick]

I've already told you that I know how complicated an engineer's job actually is. You started this by trying to argue that in a critical situation the crew would have the time to flip through manuals and would be doing so while the ship is under fire, and that doesn't happen —not if the crew hope to save their ship before it and all aboard are lost.

Excuse me but who the hell do you think you are to lecture me, a professional military aviatior, with 700+ hours flight time, who's handled multiple inflight emergencies, a few of which were in combat environments, about how engineers and other crew members operate in these situations? List your fucking qualifications, though I doubt you have any, or shut the hell up. And daddy and some overly simplistic 62 year old Navy manual are not qualifications nor adequate sources. I've got a binder in my office containing multiple safety reports involving real people who are dead now because they made the same mistakes you're making.

Now this is an interesting conversation....

Let me start my contribution to the bonfire by pointing out that there are emergencies and there are emergencies. "One response fits all" does not, in fact, fit all emergencies.

I'm going to speak mainly from my own experience, which is two-fold here. First, of course, I am also an aviator who has faced genuine emergencies as well as studied past histories of others, some of whom are no longer alive due to the circumstances in which they found themselves. The second instance is as part of the Emergency Response Team (ERT) where I work, in which civilians are trained to work with (primarially) the city fire department and/or other authorities in the event of an emergency.

I'll start ass-backwards and cover the ERT. My role on the team is pretty simple - when the alarm sounds for an "evacuate the building" emergency my job is to do a quick sweep of 1/4 of the floor, yell "GET THE HELL OUT!" to anyone I find, then meet with the team and get out myself. My job is not to argue with anyone who wants to stay, or to go into visibly dangerous areas. Just a quick sweep, note anything important (someone staying at their seat, parts of a United Airlines jet sticking through the wall, etc.), relay the information up the chain of command, and get the hell out out myself. The goal is to get out in under three minutes (in drills we usually do this in under two and half minutes). If a team member is missing - say, the floor warden - when we get to the rendezvous a new warden is appointed (quickly!), we all go down and out, and the floor warden makes a brief report to the firemen and let THEM handle any problems we left upstairs. This is, obviously, a sort of emergency requiring quick action (QA) - a fire, building collapse, whatever. You don't have time to think, to look things up, whatever. You practice the motions required so if the time ever comes you just DO it. Certainly in the case of fire, explosions, combat, etc. there is a role for this sort of response. It's also particularly well suited to foreseeable emergencies, involving large groups, utilizing a "cell" structure to organize people. Which is precisely why we find it on naval vessels with large crews, particularly in response to fire or hull damage.

The ERT at work also drills for another kind of emergency, one where we "shelter in place". That could have any number of causes - NBC attack comes to mind, but it could also be severe weather or a riot outside in the streets. It's still an emergency, but it's a different sort of emergency. We don't have to go anywhere - it's probably better if we just sit down - and while action is required, there is time. Time to think and consider our choices before acting. It is, in fact, a situation where reacting fast may be your worst option. Don't do anything to make things worse. It's a slow action emergency - a SA. You have time to argue with people who aren't cooperating. You have time to discuss a course of action.

Keep that in mind - QA and SA. While some emergencies have traits of both, most will tend to fall one way or another.

We have both types of emergencis in aviation, too (and I'm sure Wicked can confirm that). For a QA emergency no, you're not going to be looking anything up. That's why we practice actions (drills), memorize checklists (usually short ones for these emergencies), and occassionally have BIG RED LETTERS PLASTERED ON THE WALLS AND CONTROLS.

For emergencies where you have slightly more time aircraft frequently have very short checklists, often with larger than normal type, bold fonts, and more use of red that aren't exhaustive but function more as a prod to memory. Some aircraft have such memory prods painted on the outside, again featuring colors like red, yellow, and black, which may point to emergency access/egress for either assiting those inside to get out or those outside to get in. I'd be very surprised if such "memory aids" weren't extensively used on naval vessels as well - after all, even civilian public buildings have lighted "EXIT" signs, don't they? Such prompts are vital in QA's - in such emergencies the stress level is high and your brain frequently is not operating on a completely rational level.

Now, for SA's, where one might say the correct action is more important than quick action... THAT's where you have people thumbing through manuals. That's where you have people trying to work the problem.

And I'm going to continue in another post....

[Lonestar]

I've already told you that I know how complicated an engineer's job actually is. You started this by trying to argue that in a critical situation the crew would have the time to flip through manuals and would be doing so while the ship is under fire, and that doesn't happen —not if the crew hope to save their ship before it and all aboard are lost.

Uhh....this is an appeal to personal authority, so take from it what you will.

But on modern USN vessels (At least the BKH) when we ran a drill the green-hat(Training Team guy) would berate us if we didn't follow the manual to the Tee. Yes, if there was an electrical fire we were allowed to pull the switch without hauling out the manual first, but we were expected to justify the safe-shutdown procedures/start-up/what to do if x happened by pointing it out in the CSOSS. If we didn't, well, we dun fucked up the drill.

[Broomstick]

More on emergency response...

On to aviation experiences. I have had an engine quit on me twice. I realize Wicked might be over there saying "Geez, that's nothin', just keep it above the blue line" or words to that effect (assuming military planes use the same airspeed marking as civilians) so I will remind him that the airplanes I fly only have one engine. At best.

One time was during take-off. An engine failure during take-off is a prime example of a QA emergency. You have NO TIME. In fact, if you're low enough, the only thing you can do is try to hit the softest, least expensive thing in front of you. There's not a hell of a lot you can do, and anything you can do must be done in split seconds. You do the best you can, as best you remember, and hope for the best.

The other time an engine quit was last summer when, ironically enough, I was practicing engine failure procedures. I was 4500 feet in the air in an airplane that glides pretty well. This is an SA, believe it or not. The worst thing you can do in this case is get in a hurry to get on the ground. I mean, you're going to land eventually, you can't NOT land eventually, so what's the hurry? Once we determined the engine had quit we did the QA routine - best glide airspeed, find a suitable landing site and head towards and, jeepers, we're over some of the flattest real estate on the planet, over farm fields, hell, it doesn't get better than that for an off-airport landing. Then... well, we've got more than 10 minutes before we have to get serious about landing, as in, wheels on the ground. We can pull out the checklist and do a methodical trouble-shoot, careful not to miss anything proceeding in a calm, logical order. Which did, in fact, locate and solve the problem quickly. Even if we had not been able to restart the engine, we still had plenty of time to notify ATC of our predicament, let them know where we were landing, request aid, attempt to restart the engine again...

Another time when I was flying a C172 I realized, shortly after take off, the pitot-static system wasn't working properly. That affects your altimeter, vertical speed indicator, and airspeed indicator. You can't trust your instruments to tell you how high you are or how fast you're going. That's a problem! If it's not an emergency it certainly can become one if you panic. So, what did I do? Well, the first priority you have in the air is to fly the airplane. I can't stop a take-off 400 feet off the ground, I have to keep going. Fortunately, since I fly in daylight and good weather I was able to go back to the Eyeball Mark I for a crude but effective reference (My fellow pilots will also appreciate my additional concern at having only 5 hours total experience in C172s at that point, spread over several years calendar time, and all of 1.5 hours in that actual airplane. It added a certain extra level of difficulty to the excercise). This isn't really an emergency, but it's a situation where it's very important that you don't act wrongly and create an emergency. Which is why, on downwind, when I was sure everything was stable I mentally rehearsed (speaking out loud) everything I was going to do in the next five minutes. I dug out the check lists, made sure I overlooked nothing, then proceeded to land the airplane in as normal a fashion as possible. Well, OK, not an emergency but clearly a very sensitive situation.

Going outside my experience, to actual space experience, I'd like to bring up the infamous supply-rocket-colliding-with-Mir accident. They starting venting air into space. Yeah, that's a fucking QA emergency! First priority was to stop the leak. If you can't breathe you die. You don't have to worry about food or water or even falling out of orbit if you don't get that fixed. So they did. They stopped the air leak, securing part of the station. Which still left them with an emergency, but now it's a SA - they have time to decide if they will stay or evacuate. To discuss, if they stay, what will change their minds and make them evacuate. Check other systems to make sure they have other life support intact. How to perform repairs. Dig out the checklist and manuals.

So YES, there will be emergencies when you just don't have fucking time to look anything up. You might use a self-defense manual to whack an attacking Klingon over the head, but you aren't going to be reading up on jujitsu techniques during an attack. There are OTHER situations where you WILL be using checklists (to make sure you didn't miss any procedures) and manuals (because no one can know everything)

You ALSO have to have checklists/references in forms that will not stop working when the power goes out. Or as Wicked put it - stuff you can read while holding a maglite in your teeth (and yes, I've performed flashlight fellatio, I don't know any experienced pilot who hasn't at one time or another).

So, while acknowleding Patrick's observation of QA necessity, I must side with Wicked's observation about lack of such references. Trek should have placards and signs painted on the walls. Perhaps even markings on the floor. Given that the Federation has an abundance of aliens serving on ships, these should probably be in multiple languages (even Red Dwar did that!) or even in multiple color schemes because it's highly unlikely every sentient species will perceive colors in the same manner. Ditto for auditory or tactile indications. In fact, using multiple sensory pathways makes the most sense. Use everything.

Essential items must be committed to memory - AND posted on the walls and consoles! After initial damage control checklists should come out - both for more methodical checks and to make sure nothing was overlooked. When Scotty or Tucker are performing some sort of engineering miracle we should see diagrams of the structure of whatever they're working on, reference materials, and the like. There need to be printed, hardcopy references, too - just in case the power goes out. Or else some sort of heavy-duty, portable, stand alone reader device that is completely independent of the ship's systems.

I've flown on airplanes with the latest GPS tech available to civilans. And I still carry a paper map with me. Why? Because shit happens. Technology can fail. And it has - I've been on board when the high tech GPS tanks, which sucks completely, and I'm sitting there back to map and compass and looking out the window while me and the guy next to me (who is busy flying the airplane) are trying to remember where the hell the Newport, Indiana, TFR is and, oh, by the way, you don't see any F-16's on our ass, do you? Hey, captain - is that the Eli Lilly plant or widget factory or a used car dealership over that at 11 o'clock? I'm not sure either. Wow. Is this really the 21st Century?

You think shit won't tank in the 24th Century?

And anything more will have to wait, because our TV just completely died, Dr. Who is on in 5 minutes, and the Other Half is having a meltdown over it.

[Darth Wong]

Both sides in this little dispute are "sort of" right. I don't know too much about planes, but a Star Trek warp core is more like a large nuclear power plant than a plane anyway. An operator in a nuclear power plant control room is expected to have drilled in so many different possible disaster scenarios that he knows immediately what to do in a crisis, without running to a manual. However, at the same time, that doesn't mean they have some kind of macho code about deliberately not keeping reference materials nearby.

[Knife]

There is a difference between an immeadiate action drill and something that has a lot of steps and is incredibly complex, that it doesn't need a manual nor cheat sheet.

A pilot has notes, lists and checklists on him/her as they fly and a simple grunt has maps and tables for CAS and Arty strikes. Some things take time and even an occasional computation in hectic situations where written material helps.

While simple actions are drilled into you, so that you act automatically in emergency situations.

[Mr Bean]

Having met a few operators of acutal Nuclear controls rooms, and been in a few shipboard ones myself. I can tell you that, both yes there ARE manuals on hand. And they might have to justify somthing using the manual as their refrence. But they sure as hell better not turn to a manual during an acutal emergancy.

I know for my own sections, emergancy response drills and battle damage drills that manuals were never involved in any part of the drills. In fact only ED did we ever use a manual mid-drill, but that was because the inventroy was tacted onto the back of our ED manual.

[Broomstick]

Speaking of crisis ---

No sooner did we get back from getting a new TV at the store than we discovered a waterfall in the kitchen. Damn plumbing. Guess it's bad karma night or something. Still hope to catch the Dr. Who repeat at 11, though.

Anyhow...

Both sides in this little dispute are "sort of" right. I don't know too much about planes, but a Star Trek warp core is more like a large nuclear power plant than a plane anyway. An operator in a nuclear power plant control room is expected to have drilled in so many different possible disaster scenarios that he knows immediately what to do in a crisis, without running to a manual. However, at the same time, that doesn't mean they have some kind of macho code about deliberately not keeping reference materials nearby.

Right.

During an "iminent warp core breach", or other suitable emergency, no one has time to consult the manual. Afterwards, though, they should have them about as they recheck everything.

And when Scotty or Tucker are trying to jury rig something they likewise should have reference materials about.

[Lonestar]

Having met a few operators of acutal Nuclear controls rooms, and been in a few shipboard ones myself. I can tell you that, both yes there ARE manuals on hand. And they might have to justify somthing using the manual as their refrence. But they sure as hell better not turn to a manual during an acutal emergancy.

I know for my own sections, emergancy response drills and battle damage drills that manuals were never involved in any part of the drills. In fact only ED did we ever use a manual mid-drill, but that was because the inventroy was tacted onto the back of our ED manual.

Really? Man, they are assholes about it during CSTT drills on ship.

Me: Alright, I am now replacing damaged SCINs HD with new one.
CSTT: Which procedure in the CSOSS are you following?
Me: You're kidding, right?

[Wicked Pilot]

Both sides in this little dispute are "sort of" right. I don't know too much about planes, but a Star Trek warp core is more like a large nuclear power plant than a plane anyway. An operator in a nuclear power plant control room is expected to have drilled in so many different possible disaster scenarios that he knows immediately what to do in a crisis, without running to a manual. However, at the same time, that doesn't mean they have some kind of macho code about deliberately not keeping reference materials nearby.

Just to point out I'm discussing how it ought to be, not necessarily how it is in Trek. If the Federation really existed they would have blown themselves up before their first anniversary. You should design your shit so that in most every scenario a redundant feature exist that allows you properly troubleshoot the problem and take the proper action.

I'll also point out that as the complexity of system goes up so does the chance of running into an emergency that no one's every seen before and the macho 'I've seen it all' attitude will spell death in a hurry.

[Darth Wong]

Both sides in this little dispute are "sort of" right. I don't know too much about planes, but a Star Trek warp core is more like a large nuclear power plant than a plane anyway. An operator in a nuclear power plant control room is expected to have drilled in so many different possible disaster scenarios that he knows immediately what to do in a crisis, without running to a manual. However, at the same time, that doesn't mean they have some kind of macho code about deliberately not keeping reference materials nearby.

Just to point out I'm discussing how it ought to be, not necessarily how it is in Trek. If the Federation really existed they would have blown themselves up before their first anniversary. You should design your shit so that in most every scenario a redundant feature exist that allows you properly troubleshoot the problem and take the proper action.

True, Trek design is baffling in its insanity.

I'll also point out that as the complexity of system goes up so does the chance of running into an emergency that no one's every seen before and the macho 'I've seen it all' attitude will spell death in a hurry.

It would if you lie and pretend that you've drilled for a situation when you haven't. I suppose the likelihood of such a situation cropping up would depend on the quality of the engineering and training programs. Of course, in the case of Trek it's a joke at every level, but on general principle, describing the way things should be, they would have a lot better safety systems and procedures in place. For example, the chief engineer would presumably know how the warp drive works without having to play patty-cakes with a holographic projection of a MILFy scientist.

[Wicked Pilot]

It would if you lie and pretend that you've drilled for a situation when you haven't.

There's also the scenereo where the senior guy has been drilled so much that's he/she's spring loaded to react in a certain way when they see a certain thing, and when something very similiar looking but different happens they take the wrong step. Sim instructors love to pull that kind of shit on us down here and I've seen some guys fuck themselves in a hurry over it.

For example, the chief engineer would presumably know how the warp drive works without having to play patty-cakes with a holographic projection of a MILFy scientist.

There is some merit to that. If I were to invent a glass cockpit program that featured a hot naked chick reading the checklist to the pilot I'm sure I'd retire a rich man. Now to solve the problem of guys crashing into mountains while looking at boobies.

[Broomstick]

If I were to invent a glass cockpit program that featured a hot naked chick reading the checklist to the pilot I'm sure I'd retire a rich man. Now to solve the problem of guys crashing into mountains while looking at boobies.

Use female pilots.

[Junghalli]

If I were to invent a glass cockpit program that featured a hot naked chick reading the checklist to the pilot I'm sure I'd retire a rich man. Now to solve the problem of guys crashing into mountains while looking at boobies.

Use female pilots.

Wouldn't that totally defeat the whole point of his invention though?

[Broomstick]

Naw - use men as purchasing agents, they'll still buy the virtual girl, but with female pilots they won't be crashing into mountains from distraction. Unless they're dykes. But then again, you could you gay pilots --

Oh, bother, that's getting far too complicated!

[D.Turtle]

IMHO I think that the only relatively plausible explanation for the constant noise on a starship would be what was suggested on page 2 of this thread:
It is deliberately created to be "comforting" for the people on the starship. I think it isn't too far-fetched to say that if many people nowadays find "total" silence uncomfortable, in the future that would probably be even more strongly pronounced. After all, they are probably even more completely surrounded by technological things creating slight noise.
How this can explain Picard hearing some tiny misalignment of some obscure sensors is still a problem though (One possible explanation would be that he noticed the disalignment through some other way and simply wanted everyone to think that he heard it).

About the discussion on manuals and drills, I think that the two positions presented are both correct.
I'll use the original example to illustrate:
In combat a 10m wide hole is cut through the ship. This requires immediate shutting down of all power in order to prevent the ship blowing up:
This would be the Quick Action that can be drilled and has to be drilled. There is no time to look in manuals ini order to check what has to be done. After this you have to pull out the manuals, as very many different systems and power lines are affected and I doubt you can memorize the complete power system of a starship filled to the rim with electronics. Using the manuals you can then start to slowly restore power, using alternate paths, physical replacement of broken lines, laying out new cables to go through areas where the power lines are too far gone to be able to be replaced etc.
So in end effect you need both:
The immediate reaction with no or only little time to think it through or check lists or manuals, followed by flipping through technical readouts, manuals, checklists, etc.

[Patrick Degan]

IMHO I think that the only relatively plausible explanation for the constant noise on a starship would be what was suggested on page 2 of this thread: It is deliberately created to be "comforting" for the people on the starship. I think it isn't too far-fetched to say that if many people nowadays find "total" silence uncomfortable, in the future that would probably be even more strongly pronounced. After all, they are probably even more completely surrounded by technological things creating slight noise.

The ambience explanation is not plausible. It's also unnecessary; whatever the technology in the future may be, large bulk machinery like air circulators, power generators, fabricators, etc... is still going to produce noise simply because it's not possible to put together any machine with moving parts and make it totally silent. Any system with a pressure differential within its works is going to be a noise producer because of its own internal vibrations.

[Darth Wong]

IMHO I think that the only relatively plausible explanation for the constant noise on a starship would be what was suggested on page 2 of this thread:

It is deliberately created to be "comforting" for the people on the starship. I think it isn't too far-fetched to say that if many people nowadays find "total" silence uncomfortable, in the future that would probably be even more strongly pronounced.

That's utterly ridiculous. This isn't a fucking day camp for schoolchildren; it is supposed to be a military vessel. Even if we accept the preposterous notion of completely silent ultra high-powered machinery, problems with this system could still produce noise, and the deliberate addition of ambient noise for "comfort level" would make it more difficult to detect and diagnose those sounds. Not to mention the foolishness of adding a completely unnecessary powered system to every single room in the entire ship: the kind of loudspeaker you would need for creating that low-frequency rumble would not be the same kind of speaker you use for the ship's characteristically tinny voice PA system.