Why the Enterprise Could Never Go Underwater or so this guy yes.

Raymond Wagner, who has a PhD in electrical engineering and works in the space industry, told Badass Digest going underwater is the kind of thing that simply wouldn't be built into the capabilities of the spaceship. "Like most spacecraft, the Enterprise is designed to keep between one and several atmospheres of pressure in, while the ship itself is exposed to the vacuum of space," Wagner says. "This is a very different job than keeping out the pressure from tons of sea water over your head." For every 33 feet the ship descends into the body of water, Wagner says, the pressure would increase by one atmosphere, "and it won't take much depth to generate some crazy pressures!" And that's just one reason why having the Enterprise hang out underwater doesn't make sense.

Devin Faraci, who wrote the article and expressed displeasure about the scene on Twitter, obviously understands that filmmakers often stretch or fudge science in service of the story—as is their right, to make a more compelling movie. Still, he says, Star Trek has been an inspiration to scientists—and in fact has inspired many areas of modern science—since it debuted in the 1960s. But Abrams' films seem to be more fantasy than sci-fi, and that's an issue. "In a modern age where space exploration is being devalued and huge numbers of Americans still believe in Creationism, Star Trek's aspirational, human-level, technology-centered philosophy is more important than ever," Faraci writes. "I want the new Star Trek franchise to inspire the next generation of engineers and explorers. Instead it seems that JJ Abrams has taken the franchise into the Star Wars space fantasy direction, where characters misuse words like 'parsecs' and where basic physics are thrown out the window. ... Star Trek should be scifi... and science is just as important as fiction in that portmanteau. "

I tend to agree with Faraci on this one. What do you guys think?

December 11, 2012 - 3:30pm

Read the full text here: 

A Scientist Explains Why The Enterprise Can’t Go Underwater

And Devin explains why this niggling detail is, philosophically, a big deal.

In Star Trek Into Darkness the USS Enterprise hides underwater on an alien planet. You can see the moment in the latest trailer, and Ain't It Cool's Mr. Beaks, who has seen the first nine minutes of the film, explains that the ship is hiding there in order to not violate the Prime Directive on a pre-first contact planet. That means the ship is underwater on purpose, not because of some crazy event. Despite having shuttle craft and transporters, the ship has come to the planet's surface. 

This is phsyically unlikely in an enormous way, and occasional Badass contributor Raymond Wagner explains that below. Ray has a PhD in electrical engineering and is a research engineer working in the space industry. He's one of the guys paving the way for Starfleet.

But before I give you Ray's scientific explanation, I want to tell you why this bothers me on a fundamental, philosophical level:

Yes, this is a movie. Liberties can be taken to make a more exciting movie. Yes, many things in Star Trek canon don't make sense or wouldn't work. But Trek has always been a science fiction property, rooted in the idea that the stuff that happens on screen is, in some way, explainable through science. 

That's why Star Trek has been, for generations, an inspiration to scientists. Not only has the show driven young people into the sciences, the technology on the show has been an inspiration for modern advances. There are, today, scientists working on warp drive capabilities, and they will tell you they were inspired by Trek:

"I've been a devoted science fiction fan since childhood, and Star Trek has always been one of my favorites," Richard Obousy, physicist, advanced propulsion expert and co-founder of Icarus Interstellar Inc., a non-profit group of scientists dedicated to sending a probe to another star, told Discovery News. "While Star Trek is a space 'opera' at a superficial level, at its core, it is about human creativity and the vast potential of technologies that inspired human minds can construct." 

In a modern age where space exploration is being devalued and huge numbers of Americans still believe in Creationism, Star Trek's aspirational, human-level, technology-centered philosophy is more important than ever. I want the new Star Trek franchise to inspire the next generation of engineers and explorers. Instead it seems that JJ Abrams has taken the franchise into the Star Wars space fantasy direction, where characters misuse words like 'parsecs' and where basic physics are thrown out the window. There's definitely a place for this sort of fantastical fiction, but Star Wars is fantasy, not scifi. Star Trek should be scifi... and science is just as important as fiction in that portmanteau. 

So that's why I feel like this is more than a nitpick. Sacrificing basic physics for a cool shot is not in the best tradition of Star Trek. The best tradition of Star Trek is something that could really serve our world right now.

Here's Ray, giving you the science side of this:

I'll go on the record as saying that I wasn't a fan of the Enterprise being assembled on Earth and then flown up to orbit in 2009's "Star Trek".   Matt Jefferies' original design was a true spaceship, and all the design elements were focused around a ship harnessing powerful and dangerous forces to travel between stars.  It was anything but aerodynamic, and if the parts were built on Earth, they probably should've been assembled on orbit.  Those Trek ships that are capable of atmospheric flight tend to look like it - take the Klingon Bird-of-Prey, with its wings, and (though I hate to mention it) Voyager, with its more flattened-out, lifting body-like profile.  Anything else (including the Enterprise in TOS) tends to, at most, only dip the occasional toe into a planet's atmosphere in an emergency.(1)

Abrams, Orci, and Kurtzman have the keys to the kingdom, though, so I'm willing to let them play the artistic license card and roll with it.  But this whole Enterprise-under-water business has gone too far!  Like most spacecraft, the Enterprise is designed to keep between one and several atmospheres of pressure in, while the ship itself is exposed to the vacuum of space.  This is a very different job than keeping out the pressure from tons of sea water over your head. (2) It just strains credibility to the breaking point to ask us to believe that those poor Starfleet engineers were told to take flying under water into account in their ship designs.  How often can that even need to happen during your average mission?  Spoiler alert: like, never. Or hardly ever.  You just wouldn't build that sort of thing into your space ship's requirements.  I suppose you could technobabble your way out of any criticism like this with structural integrity fields and blah, blah, blah, but come on - that's the sort of thing that eventually killed the TNG-era run of Trek.  If we're already at that point two movies into the reboot, we're in real trouble.

(1) There was actually a nod to the saucer section being capable of landing in the re-design for TMP, with four landing gear hatches included on the underside of the model, but this was never exploited in the TOS-era movies.  And, of all the parts of the Enterprise, this is really the only one that makes any sense in an atmosphere.

(2) For every 33 feet you descend in the sea, the pressure over your head increases by 1 atmosphere.  So, if something as big as the Enterprise is really hiding under water like all those extended trailer descriptions indicate, it's probably going to want to go deep to be stealthy.  And it won't take much depth to generate some crazy pressures!

Note from Devin: taking into account published, official dimensions of the Enterprise, it's possible the ship would need to submerge deep enough to get to 6 atmospheres just to be fully underwater.

--brought to you by mental_floss! 

Doc Thompson 

• 42 minutes ago

• −

Devin Faraci, might know science,but I'm not sure he understands the technology put into a star ship like the Enterprise.Sure space pressure might be easier of a star ship,but this a big one.We aren't talking about a normal ship of today or even tomorrow.Throughout Star Trek,we are told of Its structural integrity is supported by a secondary shield layer (not the primary defensive shields) that keeps the hull intact.Fantastic materials,that make up the ships hull.Plus,even science theorizes thing aqua warp bubbles and new fantastic material,that might possible in decades to come.In my own creative material,I have star ships called Star Palaces and the HMSS Star Pheonix,that can not only survive it in space,but undersea like a submarine.Ok,I don't a big PhD in electrical engineering and works in the space industry,but I know enough of what is known about the world of Star Trek,plus I've read enough of what might be possible someday.If the Star Ship Enterprise and such ships can survive moving around normal space and warp space as it does,with killing the crew,well who am I to argue ?Star Trek science proposes allot of things impossible by todays standards.

Raymond Wagner,is employing whats con artist like Erich von Däniken did with his Chariot of the Gods mythology.He applied todays science,with outer space,advanced technology.Wagner here would object to this,but he is guilty of the same thinking,but doing so with a background other than.The space-gods revealed : a close look at the theories of Erich von Däniken.Von Däniken was born in Zofingen, Aargau. Brought up a strict Catholic, he attended the international Catholic school Saint-Michel in Fribourg, Switzerland. During his time at the school he rejected the church's interpretations of the Bible, and developed an interest in astronomy and the phenomenon of flying saucers.After moving to Egypt, he was convicted for fraud and embezzlement.Von  Däniken general claim of Von Däniken over many published books starting with Chariots of the Gods? in 1968 is that extraterrestrials or "ancient astronauts" visited Earth and influenced early human culture. Von Däniken writes of his belief that structures such as the Egyptian pyramids, Stonehenge, and the Moai of Easter Island and artifacts from that period represent higher technological knowledge than is presumed to have existed at the times they were manufactured. He also describes ancient artwork throughout the world as containing depictions of astronauts, air and space vehicles, extraterrestrials, and complex technology. Von Däniken explains the origins of religions as reactions to contact with an alien race, and offers interpretations of sections of the Old Testament of the Bible.Often his conclusions,mixed modern science,with fantastic what if technology.Flip side Raymond Wagner, who has a PhD in electrical engineering and works in the space industry,is using what we know today,to explain what they know in the fictional reality of Star Trek,and what might amaze us today,but what might be common sense centuries in the future.The realist of today,many with lots of practical knowledge and little imagination of what might be,often for get that and get press by Badass Digest.I"m saying,what say may not be true,but.....ok,this a big one,WHAT THE CREATIVE PEOPLE OF STAR TREK HAVING PRESENTED US FOR DECADES NOW.

Why wouldn't the Enterprise be able to withstand outside pressure as opposed to a vacuum. Its structural integrity is supported by a secondary shield layer (not the primary defensive shields) that keeps the hull intact. In TNG, the Enterprise-D has no windows, its a force-field that keeps everything in place. So given that, it would be plausible that it both keeps things from exploding outwards as well as crushing inwards.We don"t if the USS Enterprise couldn"t survive crushing depths of the sea.Seems to me,that underwater is nothing,compared to stresses of sub space,rapid accelloration and so on.

Raymond Wagner, who has a PhD in electrical engineering and works in the space industry, told Badass Digest going underwater is the kind of thing that simply wouldn't be built into the capabilities of the spaceship. "Like most spacecraft, the Enterprise is designed to keep between one and several atmospheres of pressure in, while the ship itself is exposed to the vacuum of space," Wagner says. "This is a very different job than keeping out the pressure from tons of sea water over your head." For every 33 feet the ship descends into the body of water, Wagner says, the pressure would increase by one atmosphere, "and it won't take much depth to generate some crazy pressures!" And that's just one reason why having the Enterprise hang out underwater doesn't make sense.

shuttles didnt exist till there was a budget for them, figuring out how 
to land a spaceship seems....less complicated than atomic 
reconfiguration."I recall it had more to do with t.v. budget and time constraints, which mandated getting actors down to the "action" as expeditiously as possible every week. I would think stock shots of the shuttle would serve the same purpose, which they did use occasionally, but the transporter was deemed more elegant and visually appealing. Also it made a great deus ex machina when the leads found themselves in a tight spot in the final act.

In the 1960s, doing sfx footage of a huge spaceship landing in every episode was prohibitively-expensive.

Even when the shuttlecraft was used, it was never actually shown landing or taking off from planet surfaces (only the shuttlebay).

The fact that it was assembled on earth suggests that it's made for atmospheric flight, not just the vacuum of space. because they've already breached the wall into fantasy, i don't think this is such a big deal anymore. i wouldn't be surprised if it gets covered in lava on mustafar, either.

but that's not an apology: i loved how the old trek films seemed to exist within the Space Odyssey universe of realistic possibilities... especially the first one.

Teleportation has been a common sci-fi concept from the 1930s onward. The big difference in Star Trek was not having a terminal device at both ends of the transmission. But even that has fallen by the wayside since the 1960s.

As to why the Enterprise has to "hide" in the ocean, couldn't they just stay in high orbit and use the shields/deflectors to hide from ground-based scanners/radar/whatever?Maybe.

That's true - it is opinion to a certain degree. Unfortunately, the TNG era got so out of control with tech'ing its way out of story problems with things like structural integrity fields that it's hard to know when those "canon tech" arguments should be applied and when they shouldn't, especially when you get into minutiae like structural integrity fields. For example, is there anything we can't solve through creative use of the navigational deflector?

I think it'd be tough to find a consistent enough through-line in the finer points of cannon tech to argue that the Enterprise is a wonderful submarine. The point is that we've only ever seen evidence that it's designed to be a true space ship. And things that are excellent at operating in that kind of environment are very different from things that are excellent at operating at extreme sea depths. Could we loosey-goosey tech our way to consolidating the two? Sure, we probably could. But that sort of thing is what eventually killed the TNG era of storytelling, and I expect more from a back-to-basics approach to Trek.

I remember Rodenberry's explanation of the transporters....because the damn ship could not land.....Devin is correct. This has migrated from science fiction to science fantasy.
There's a difference between SF and fantasy. SF is extrapolation of existing known science, supposing future advancements. Fantasy just makes up its own rules out of the ether. Transporters and e/m conversion, and warp drive, are theoretically plausible but not yet possible (and may never be). Magic and dragons and demons are complete fantasy.

Hell, Roddenberry practically invented transporters because he couldn't figure out how to land the ship, and added shuttle crafts to the mix for those missions where teleporting was impossible. I feel like they could've given us the ocean scene while keeping it within the bounds of plausible science--say, a specially modified shuttle, or even the saucer section if you have to have something visually distinct--but the idea probably would've gotten shot down because it wasn't as cinematic as the whole Enterprise rising from the ocean.

Given the density of water is 1035 kg/m^3, I'm calculating about 2.9 megapascals on the shields from all directions while submerged, or about like its being fired on in all directions from an overcharged paintball gun (A current day nuclear sub is rated to about 5 megapascals 500 meters down, but I'm assuming the Enterprise is just deep enough to be covered entirely)

Given that we know it can survive at least one 50+ megaton quantum torpedo (overpressure on the order of 30 megapascals if our estimates of past nuclear tests and stuff like the OKC bombing are correct) I don't think the pressure from the water is exactly a shield drainer.

In specifically canonical references, in Voyager 2x06 their ship survives 47 megapascals of pressure outside, its definitely shown to be dangerous, but it survives.

Basic Warp theory in Star Trek states that the warp field is produced by
the warp engine and then tuned through the plasma flows to the warp 
nacelles. The warp field does push "part" of the ship into subspace. 
Part, but not all. It is done that way to kind of sidestep Einstien's 
e=mc2 where as you approach lightspeed your mass approaches infinite and
thus you need infinite energy to achieve full lightspeed.

By slipping "part" of the ship into subspace, through the warp field, it
would negate the mass restrictions to approaching lightspeed and you 
could use a standard matter/antimatter reactor to give you the final 
push.

But firstly, who says this is water...that's a big assumption, it could be any kind of liquid, and from the way it moves it does seem to be lighter than normal water...and secondly, i find it hard to believe that the Enterprise or any space-faring vessel wouldn't be engineered to move through very dense gas, which I believe it has in certain episodes including TOS but definitely later on.
If this were any ordinary ship I would agree with you...and I've always had an issue when people assume a spaceship can go underwater, a submarine and a spaceship are philosophically on the opposite ends of the spectrum...but I might give this a pass until someone says this is water and makes no reference to pressure.

Maybe to you ,Mister PhD in electrical engineering it dosen't sence,but to me,once you say,a ship can warp space and survive intake,as the star ship enterprise can-well,all modern science gets bent a bit.You can't just chalk it up to Hollywood guys getting away with murder.If you want to believe in all the things the ship is said to do,well this can be possible..maybe someday.The only reason,Gene Roddenberry never had the Enterprise go underwater,is maybe he never concidered it and two,you"d need to dump the Star Ship Enterprise and the like,in the same water tank as the NSR Seaveiw.

Can the Enterprise survive underwater ...maybe.It can survive allot of other difficult environment .Deep Space,Sub Space,Fluidic Space,Supernovas,phaser fire and so on.Water,should not much of a problem.