• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Gravity plating on ships

Maybe we extend the field slightly further then, this way when they setup the Gravity Plating, the deck above will already be feeling the effects of weaker gravity and you'll have relatively consistent gravity up to the point of a persons head. With each deck's gravity plate network combined, you'll have a relatively consistent feel of Gravity, no matter how tall you are.

Yeah, but then you wouldn't be weightless if you were standing on the upper hull of the ship, as in ENT: "Minefield." They were literally just one deck above the uppermost deck, so they should've felt some gravity in the way you describe.

Honestly, I think many TV writers are so ignorant of physics that they think gravity is caused by atmosphere or something. They never realize that a ship's artificial gravity should be felt beyond its hull.
 
Yeah, but then you wouldn't be weightless if you were standing on the upper hull of the ship, as in ENT: "Minefield." They were literally just one deck above the uppermost deck, so they should've felt some gravity in the way you describe.

Honestly, I think many TV writers are so ignorant of physics that they think gravity is caused by atmosphere or something. They never realize that a ship's artificial gravity should be felt beyond its hull.
It wouldn't surprise me.



According to the ST:TNG Technical Manual, the TNG-era Gravity Plate Network on the Enterprise-D were much larger.
Stack Exchange has a nice picture of it here.
The gravity field itself is created by a controlled stream of gravitons, much like those produced by the tractor beam. In fact, the basic physics is the same. Power from the electro plasma system (EPS) is channeled into a hollow chamber of anicium titanide 454, a sealed cylinder measuring 50 cm in diameter by 25 cm high. Suspended in the center of the cylinder, in pressurized chrylon gas, is a superconducting stator of thoronium arkenide. The stator, once set to a rotational rate above 125,540 rpm, generates a graviton field with a short lifetime, on the order of a few picoseconds. This decay time necessitates the addition of the second layer of generators beyond 30 meters distance. The field is gentle enough to allow natural walking without a gravity gradient from head to foot, long a problem in brute-force physical centripetal systems
Those TNG-era Graviton Generators were MUCH larger, but you only needed one every 30 meters.
IMO, the scale of the TNG-era Graviton Generators them doesn't make sense for future StarShip use compared to what came next in terms of in-universe technical achievements of miniaturization.

Those larger TNG-era Graviton Generators would be better used inside a large Artificial Mega-Structure.
Something similar to a "Banks Orbital" scale Mega-Structure.

I prefer the Intrepid-era version of Gravity Plating where it was miniaturized into a Mesh Network and placed underneath like carpet.
The RCS maneuvering thrusters and gravity generators shared key electro-plasma system (EPS) technology for boththe production and distribution of high-energy plasma. The RCS microfusion reactors and thruster nozzle reliedon redunant sets of magnetic valves and polished felnium tritonide conduits to precisely rotate Voyager, anddrive it at low velocities. These same conduits and valves were designed into the new gravity plating, a carpet of thousands of miniaturized graviton generators, each measuring 3.23 cm across. The hexagonal valvesresponded to plasma pressure variations, averaging out power distribution, and allowing for up to 10 percentgenerator failure without a perceptible change in local gravity. In earlier starships, larger and fewergraviton devices had occasionally produced unpleasant balance and minor nausea effects, particularly in rookiecrew members.
The size of these makes ALOT more sense for practical usage inside a StarShip or StarBase.

The Intrepid-class era Gravity Plate Carpet Mesh are far more modular, smaller, lighter-weight.
Easier to power since the micro-stators are far smaller (Coin-sized at 3.23 cm in Diameter) vs the TNG-era units which were 50 cm in diameter & 25 cm high.
The TNG-era units didn't have battery backup, so if main power from the EPS went off, it had residual Gravity generating capabilities for up to 240 minutes (4 hrs) with a reduced Gravity output at 0.8g.

What I want as a upgrade is for a CEM (Condensed Energy Matrix) battery to be placed in each Hexagon EPS Valve unit and allow those to act as a battery backup.
This way, when main EPS power goes out to the Gravity Plate network for whatever reason, the Gravity on the ship can remain operational on it's own.

We saw how amazing the CEM (Condensed Energy Matrix) was when it was enough to power the Druoda "Series 5 Long-Range Tactical Armor Unit" M/A-M Torpedo at Warp Speeds across a Maximum Range of 80 Light Years

Imagine shrinking that battery source and splitting it up to act as "Battery Backup" for the Gravity Plate Carpet Mesh Network.
You could have Gravity operating for a VERY LONG time by drip feeding power.

Assuming the Intrpeid-era Gravity Generators followed the same "Aspect Ratio" in terms of design to the TNG-era, they would be ~3.23 cm in Diameter by 1.615 cm high.
That's a very thick coin in terms of size. but it would be manage-able as a form of Gravity Plate Carpet Mesh Network.
 
Last edited:
Is there anything in Star Trek that would suggest that they are incapable of creating a no-gradient gravity field? So if they wanted to have a constant 1g from the deck place to the ceiling it should be trivial for them to do?
 
Is there anything in Star Trek that would suggest that they are incapable of creating a no-gradient gravity field? So if they wanted to have a constant 1g from the deck place to the ceiling it should be trivial for them to do?
Not to my knowledge from Licensed Works like TNG:Technical Manuals or other Trek Published works.

Everything has a gradient of some sort.

But that never stopped the show from functioning under relatively normal Gravity Field Pre-Tenses.
 
I still think it would make far more sense to have a single shipwide gravity field. Since nothing blocks gravity, after all, you'd only need a single gravity source at the bottom of the ship. Or a field pervading the entire volume the ship occupies, as with the warp cages in my Arachne trilogy. Having hundreds of deck plates generating separate gravity fields seems overcomplicated. It's more versatile, sure, since you can turn off gravity in just one room, but how often would you really need that? It just seems overly fiddly. Good engineering generally entails keeping things simple. As a noted Starfleet chief engineer once said, "The more they overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain."
 
I still think it would make far more sense to have a single shipwide gravity field. Since nothing blocks gravity, after all, you'd only need a single gravity source at the bottom of the ship. Or a field pervading the entire volume the ship occupies, as with the warp cages in my Arachne trilogy. Having hundreds of deck plates generating separate gravity fields seems overcomplicated. It's more versatile, sure, since you can turn off gravity in just one room, but how often would you really need that? It just seems overly fiddly. Good engineering generally entails keeping things simple. As a noted Starfleet chief engineer once said, "The more they overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain."
That would be a Great "Gravity Design" for a Alien vessel IMO. That would present a nice vulnerability to exploit for a episode.

I prefer the redundant network system that UFP / StarFleet uses for Federation StarBases/StarShips

Also, Good Engineering is designing a system with built in redundancies, having a mesh network is more redundant in terms of fault tolerance than having a single point of failure.

Most BiPaBs {Bi-(Pedal & Brachial)-oids} species prefer operating under gravity, some might prefer slightly higher than 1.0g, some might like slightly lower.
In the privacy of their own quarters, they can turn Up/Dn the gravity to suit their natural preferences when they don't have to operate under common environmental settings.

Like how everybody has a preferred temperature, some species that aren't perfectly Human, but are Bi-PaBs would most likely prefer something closer to what their native home planet operates on.

And then there's StarFleet Officers like Melora Pazlar who's species operate under very low gravity.

So it's best to design a environmental gravity system that is flexible to accomdate various people & species individual preferences if possible.

That's what makes StarFleet amazing, their facilities can support a very wide range of species, sometimes too wide IMO.

Like having Cetacean Ops.

I think they would get seperated into their own StarShips alongside eventual future UFP members like the Xindi.

With the Xindi Aquatics having their own StarShips, I can see the Cetacean's prefer operating with the Xindi Aquatics on their own massive StarShips which are mostly contained with water with tiny Air Filled rooms for interacting with those who do not natively live in water.
 
Some people argue that the S.S. Botany Bay from 1996 is a continuity error since no Earth ship originally designed at the end of the 20th century (and decades before warp drive was first invented) should be equipped with gravity plating to hold down people walking inside the vessel, but I just think that the Enterprise rendered the Botany Bay with normal Earth-style gravity when she locked her tractor beam onto the sleeper ship.

As per when Earth independently developed grav plating? Probably by the start of the 22nd century at the latest since Earth Cargo Authority ships like the E.C.S. Horizon have artificial gravity and are already many decades old by the start of ENT.
 
Also, Good Engineering is designing a system with built in redundancies, having a mesh network is more redundant in terms of fault tolerance than having a single point of failure.

Maybe, if it actually made a shred of physical sense, which it doesn't. Matter is not opaque to gravity, and any gravity source would realistically be omnidirectional. If you had gravity plates both above and below you, they'd cancel out and you'd still be weightless, at least in the middle of the room. If you had an inactive gravity plate below you and the quarters next to you had active plates, then you wouldn't be weightless because the adjacent plates would pull on you diagonally, the horizontal vectors cancelling out and leaving a vertical vector that was less than the full g-force but still nonzero. It just could not work the way it's depicted.

If you want crew quarters with variable gravity levels, then obviously if you have a single gravity source at the base of the ship, then the strongest gravity will be felt on the lowest deck, the weakest on the uppermost deck.


Some people argue that the S.S. Botany Bay from 1996 is a continuity error since no Earth ship originally designed at the end of the 20th century (and decades before warp drive was first invented) should be equipped with gravity plating to hold down people walking inside the vessel, but I just think that the Enterprise rendered the Botany Bay with normal Earth-style gravity when she locked her tractor beam onto the sleeper ship.

I don't see how that would work. If a gravity-based tractor beam is pulling on a vessel, then it would pull on the ship and its occupants equally and they would feel weightless, just as the occupants of a free-falling elevator would feel weightless because there's no differential between their own acceleration and that of the elevator car.

As I mentioned before, I prefer to think the cryogenic chambers were in a rotating section in the cylindrical part of the Botany Bay.
 
Maybe, if it actually made a shred of physical sense, which it doesn't.
This is the Star Trek Universe.

They have Repulsor style Anti-Grav tech.

Their Gravity Plating seems to be directional.

Regardless of how IRL is, that's what seems to be shown.

Matter is not opaque to gravity, and any gravity source would realistically be omnidirectional.
True, but what we see on StarShips & StarBases that seems to contradict that.

If you had gravity plates both above and below you, they'd cancel out and you'd still be weightless, at least in the middle of the room.
But that isn't what is being depicted on-screen.

If you had an inactive gravity plate below you and the quarters next to you had active plates, then you wouldn't be weightless because the adjacent plates would pull on you diagonally, the horizontal vectors cancelling out and leaving a vertical vector that was less than the full g-force but still nonzero. It just could not work the way it's depicted.
That's if you're applying IRL logic, the show doesn't work that way for obvious reasons.

If you want crew quarters with variable gravity levels, then obviously if you have a single gravity source at the base of the ship, then the strongest gravity will be felt on the lowest deck, the weakest on the uppermost deck.
But that's assuming it's a single source.

The term Gravity Plating implies there are multiple weak Gravity Sources working in conjunction with each other.

Even in ST:LD, it's shown that they can control Gravity to be "Highly Localized" like when Mariner turned up Gravity around the Warp Core only.

The Federation & StarFleet has shown to have that level of mastery over the forces of Gravity.

So much so that it doesn't spill to the outside of the ship where sensors might pickup stray Gravimetric emissions and affect anybody in a EV suit walking on the hull of the ship.
 
But that isn't what is being depicted on-screen.

Which is my point -- that what's depicted onscreen is fantasy nonsense. Evaluating fiction doesn't mean simply restating what happens in it, it means thinking critically about what happens in it and acknowledging its flaws and departures from realism.

Besides, I'm not just a passive spectator of science fiction, I'm a writer of hard science fiction, so I like to think about how I'd handle a concept more plausibly. I don't think I've ever seen a believable treatment of artificial gravity in TV or film (meaning the generation of an actual attractive field as opposed to rotation like in 2001), so I like to imagine what a (relatively) more credible approach would look like. Seeing the same things over and over again gets boring.
 
Which is my point -- that what's depicted onscreen is fantasy nonsense.
But we've known that for quite a while, it's only a step closer to Hard Sci-Fi than Star Wars.
But it's still very far from "Hard Sci-Fi".

Evaluating fiction doesn't mean simply restating what happens in it, it means thinking critically about what happens in it and acknowledging its flaws and departures from realism.
But we've accepted that Star Trek & most other Sci-Fi series interpretations over Artificial Gravity has similar flaws.
Doesn't matter if it's:
- Star Trek
- Star Wars
- StarGate
- StarShip Troopers
- BattleStar Galactica
- Babylon 5
- FireFly | Serenity
- Doctor Who

All of them treat it in a similar manner.

Besides, I'm not just a passive spectator of science fiction, I'm a writer of hard science fiction, so I like to think about how I'd handle a concept more plausibly. I don't think I've ever seen a believable treatment of artificial gravity in TV or film (meaning the generation of an actual attractive field as opposed to rotation like in 2001), so I like to imagine what a (relatively) more credible approach would look like. Seeing the same things over and over again gets boring.
By all means, write the type of Hard Sci-Fi that you want to portray in your works.
I'm happy to look at it when it's done.

Oh, go back & watch "Martian Successor Nadesico" Anime.
It's a oldie, but a goodie.
I think you'll enjoy it.

The 26 ep TV series is very different tonally than the Movie:
Martian Successor Nadesico: The Motion Picture – Prince of Darkness

But I enjoy both for what it is.
 
Last edited:
But we've known that for quite a while, it's only a step closer to Hard Sci-Fi than Star Wars.
But it's still very far from "Hard Sci-Fi".

Just because this conversation started being about Star Trek doesn't require it to be limited to that. Part of discussing and analyzing a work of fiction is comparing it to things outside itself, whether other works of fiction or the real-life phenomena it takes liberties with. You can learn more about a thing by comparing it with other things.


All of them treat it in a similar manner.

As I already said, I'm well aware of that, and it's the whole reason I found it more interesting to talk about alternative possibilities.
 
I don't see how that would work. If a gravity-based tractor beam is pulling on a vessel, then it would pull on the ship and its occupants equally and they would feel weightless, just as the occupants of a free-falling elevator would feel weightless because there's no differential between their own acceleration and that of the elevator car.
That's not how tractor beams are shown and said to work in canon. Tractor beams are graviton beams. See, for example, "The Masterpiece Society":

LAFORGE: Transferring warp power to tractor beam generator.​
HANNAH: Graviton generators operating normally. Surge pulse now synchronised. Emitters radiating at three hundred twenty percent over standard.​

In all the times that ships have been shown to tow other ships with a tractor beam, and that's a lot of examples, the bridge crew has never been shown to become suddenly weightless. :lol:
 
Just because this conversation started being about Star Trek doesn't require it to be limited to that. Part of discussing and analyzing a work of fiction is comparing it to things outside itself, whether other works of fiction or the real-life phenomena it takes liberties with. You can learn more about a thing by comparing it with other things.
I know, I do that myself and have recorded the results with my own 780+ Page Head Cannon "New TV Series Universe & Writers Guide / Technical Rules Manual" for what I see the In-Universe Star Trek World progressing towards (Technologically, Sociologically, AstroPolitically, etc) into the start of the 26th century.

I have my own extrapolations for how everything is going to progress in-Universe moving down the time-line.

I literally factor in all the results of existing shows and how their actions get inter-woven into the current show's In-Universe Lore.

Yes, even Star Trek: Discovery & the Spore Drive along with some 32nd Century Tech.

I managed to balance it out and not make it to OP (Over Powering) and reasonable to use as a in-universe FTL drive amongst a Cabinet full of various FTL drives.

Each with it's own limitations and PRO(s) / CON(s) to their individual use.



As I already said, I'm well aware of that, and it's the whole reason I found it more interesting to talk about alternative possibilities.
I agree that your thoughts about it are very fascinating, but it'll work better for a "Alien Culture" who is young & new in their handling of Gravity Tech or for another Franchise/Universe.

The UFP & StarFleet have long since moved past those issues and operate in a very alien way compared to what we would logically expect based on our current understandings.

It would be very jarring to see StarFleet & UFP have that type of tech when it's clearly been surpassed.

It'd be like a StarFleet ship enocuntering the Roscinante from "The Expanse".

Everything about the Roscinante would look primitive & quaint compared to everything that was on a StarFleet ship.

The technology would be so far ahead, it's not even comparable.
 
Last edited:
Okada and Sternbach explained the gravity tech in the TNG Technical Manual.
Thanks for this. It's always nice to have electronically searchable copies of this sort of thing.

The most relevant section for the particular question:

12.3 GRAVITY GENERATION​
Since the time of the first orbital research stations in the​
Sol system, the difficulties as well as the benefits presented​
by microgravity situations have been exhaustively docu¬​
mented.​
The crews of the first true human-built interstellar craft of​
the twenty-first century coped with acceleration and zero -g​
coasting mission segments through the use of rotating centri¬​
fuges, acceptable solutions for the day.​
Humanoid organ systems require gravitational and elec¬​
tromagnetic fields to insure proper cellular growth and viabil¬​
ity, simulating the natural conditions present on most Class M​
worlds. Low-level field devices simulated the planetary elec¬​
trical and magnetic energy, and the descendants of many​
twenty- to thirty-year flights arrived in a healthy state.​
The general planform of the Galaxyc lass starship returns​
to a more natural existence in that people are free to move​
about on planar surfaces with a constant gravity holding them​
to the deck. Aboard the starship, this is accomplished through​
the use of a network of small gravity generators. The network​
is divided into four regions, two within the Saucer Module and​
two within the Battle Section. All four work to maintain the​
proper sense of “down,” and are also actively tied to the inertial​
damping field system to minimize motion shock during flight.​
The two Saucer Module gravity networks each support 400​
generators; those in the Battle Section each support 200.​
Fields overlap slightly between devices, but this is barely​
noticeable.​
The gravity field itself is created by a controlled stream of
gravitons, much like those produced by the tractor beam. In
fact, the basic physics is the same. Power from the electro​
plasma system (EPS) is channeled into a hollow chamber of​
anicium titanide 454, a sealed cylinder measuring 50 cm in​
diameter by 25 cm high. Suspended in the center of the​
cylinder, in pressurized chrylon gas, is a superconducting​
stator of thoronium arkenide. The stator, once set to a​
rotational rate above 125,540 rpm, generates a graviton field​
with a short lifetime, on the order of a few picoseconds. This​
decay time necessitates the addition of the second layer of​
generators beyond 30 meters distance. The field is gentle​
enough to allow natural walking without a gravity gradient​
from head to foot, long a problem in brute-force physical​
centripetal systems.​

Nice thinking, @cooleddie74.
 
I was just spitballing a fair theory and had completely forgotten the Okuda and Sternbach reference material, but it seemed plausible to me at least in-universe that when the Enterprise tractor beam grabbed the Botany Bay it created a stable Earth gravity environment within the ship that permitted Kirk and company to beam aboard without the use of EV boots.

It may not be hard science per se, but it works within the Trek science conjectured for the franchise.
 
I was just spitballing a fair theory and had completely forgotten the Okuda and Sternbach reference material, but it seemed plausible to me at least in-universe that when the Enterprise tractor beam grabbed the Botany Bay it created a stable Earth gravity environment within the ship that permitted Kirk and company to beam aboard without the use of EV boots.

It may not be hard science per se, but it works within the Trek science conjectured for the franchise.
Star Trek is not hard science fiction, of course.

I think your idea works plausibly enough within the context of how the Treknology was indicated and implied to work, even if this feature was never explicitly stated on-screen. There are magic beam projectors on the ships, and it's not like a gravitational field that can do what you say is physically dissimilar from the types of fields that the tractor beam projectors have already been stated, both canonically and in officially-licensed tie-in material, to be able to create.

If one's science fiction instincts are not satisfied unless there's a conversation law being observed, then I'd suggest that the projected field is composed of closed loops, the vessel onto which the gravitational field is projected is covered by only small arcs of those loops, so that magnitude and direction of "down" is roughly the same all over the vessel, and the vessel is held in place by the normal towing operation of the beam, to stop it from spinning in the projected field.
 
Thanks.

This tractor beam gravity generation theory also applies to the S.S. Birdseye cryogenic storage vessel from the year 1994 ("The Neutral Zone(TNG)"). A ship even older than the Botany Bay isn't likely to have any sort of crude gravity plating and that craft was little more than a big refrigeration case with solar panels. But when Data and Worf beam aboard they're both walking in a normal gravity environment.
 
Gravitons are not fictional. They are the hypothetical exchange particle for the gravitational interaction in quantum theory, the equivalent of photons for electromagnetism.

.....

"Fictional" was a poor word choice on my part. "Hypothetical" or perhaps even "conjectural" might have been a better choice.

I understand that the gravitron as a hypothetical mechanism for gravity has been a popular idea with a good pedigree, but I've heard other propositions as well with their own interesting implications.

Speaking as an uneducated layman, the concept that seems most intuitive to me is that gravity is an emergent phenomenon where mass distorts spacetime, causing otherwise "flat" space to curve, sending objects in their straight-line inertial path in an objectively curved course. It also slows down time--the closer to the mass, the slower time flows. "Down" is where time runs slower. The idea of this working because of photon-analog particles doesn't make sense to me (of course I concede that people smarter than me think it makes sense just fine).

The idea that gravity effects time is something that I feel hard sci-fi has not explored enough of. There are some interesting ideas in there for sure.

I have wondered if gravitons are like Ptolemy's epicycles: the math works, but it just ain't the real deal. If they are experimentally confirmed soon, I'll eat my words.

--Alex
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top