How do inertial dampeners work

Some of my solutions to address this will likely be to limit the delta V via various approaches, but I'm also looking into what I can do to make high G forces tolerable for humans.

The problem is that real inertial dampeners are rather high-tech. If you can install some inertia dampening field you have discovered a way to mess with a raw force of nature, and there have to be all kinds of other interesting technology that comes from such a discovery. I want a somewhat near-future work, advanced enough for space travel but not to the level of all tech being applied phlebotinum.

Thus I don't want inertial dampeners that are some magic hand-wave field that 'just works'. What are viable approaches that could be used to help pilots handle high G forces without full scale inertial dampeners? In a somewhat advanced future, but before we reach the point of energy fields and nano-robots what approaches may be viable that aren't, yet, viable for fighter pilots of the present?

I'm most interested in space-fighters, though I don't know if the fact that their in space really effects the issue of G force and inertia. This book has pretty much every idea devised to survive high g environments. An unprotected civilian in a sitting position can remain conscious up to g's depending upon their fitness level. Put your pilots in a g-suit or its analog. These squeeze the extremities to keep blood flowing to the internal organs and brains of the pilot.

Using these pilots can tolerate g's for seconds to minutes the g-suit typically adds around 1 g to a persons tolerance. The human body tolerates g's better in some orientations than others. Combined with a g-suit, most trained pilots can remain conscious through 9 g maneuvers for short periods of time typically less than 1 minute. In centrifuge tests, some subjects remained conscious at 15 g's for about a minute.

This is the duration of the maneuver I don't know the physiological limitations of it. Train your pilots in how to tolerate high g's with the g-straining maneuver.

Pilots still need to practice the 'g-straining maneuver' that consists of tensing the abdominal muscles in order to tighten blood vessels so as to reduce blood pooling in the lower body. High g is not comfortable, even with a g-suit. The test below shows that someone survived g-forces up to 45 g's in experiments and g's in crashes but both of these were instantaneous loads.

So I'm not sure what the theoretical maximum g-load is. Human g-tolerances. John Stapp rocket sled. John Stapp was subjected to 15 g for 0. He would eventually survive a peak of more than 46 g, with more than 25 g for 1. Keep your pilots on the carrier doing their flying via remote control technology. The pilots still need to be in space near the fighters because of the limits to the speed of light.

Their virtual cockpit could still be just like the real thing except for blacking out, and getting hurt and killed. This is certain to be only a first step toward unmanned fighters, regardless of how much the ex-pilots in the force resist the change. Pilots in vehicles only make it more expensive to operate and much more expensive in terms of replacing lost pilots.

It occurred to me that maybe the remote pilots don't even have to know that they are remote pilots -- perhaps due to built-in VR of their fully enclosed flight suit after all, they don't actually need a transparent face shield. Let's assume that pilots perform better when their life is on the line -- actually a reasonable assumption if it reduces unacceptably risky behaviors that destroy too many unmanned fighters due to lazy piloting. And now the pilots also believe they have inertial dampening fields too.

Perhaps this is now a fully legitimate answer. Recovery from "kills" could be explained as a last resort high tech force field, perhaps a Slaver stasis field. If you need to get rid of pilots Or it could also be that dying in the simulator naturally results in death in a certain percentage of cases. You have a reverse Ender's Game setup, one politically dirty, one politically clean. Of course those in charge would know the truth. News organizations could be fed misinformation, etc.

Joined: Apr 1, Location: Ontario, Canada. I apologise in advance for my weakness in physics. I realize that the Inertial Dampeners are established canon, I've never quite understood why. If the starship travels by warping space, would the acceleration still be that extreme inside the warp bubble? Could the Inertial Dampers be part of the artificial gravity system?

That is, could the same system that causes the crew to "gravitate" to the deck plates, be applied to the walls of a starship to compensate for acceleration? Also, how necessary are these structural integrity fields? Could these structural integrity fields be just a cost saving measure? Evans , Oct 30, Joined: Jun 22, In the end it is a made-up technology, and as far as I know no Trek movie or series has even attempted to explain it in any detail.

I'm unsure if you are doing research for some fiction you are writing, or you're just an interested fan, but I wouldn't worry about trying to explain it too much. Don't get me wrong, I'm interested in Trek tech myself but thinking about it too much can spoil the magic of the show. Last edited: Oct 30, Newton , Oct 30, Joined: May 31, Location: Colonel Midnight. This use of them could exaggerate the damage sustained by a starship in a battle, as the ship rocked more violently when its inertial dampers were disabled.

In an alternate timeline , after the USS Enterprise was struck by the USS Bozeman in the starboard nacelle , the impact caused the Enterprise 's inertial dampers to fail, and it to lose attitude control. TNG : " Cause and Effect ". As a safety precaution, the inertial dampers on Federation vessels had an automatic bypass that kicked in when the system was disabled.

TNG : " Cost of Living ". The entire crew of a Jem'Hadar attack ship was killed when their inertial damping system apparently failed as the ship went into warp.

A Changeling that was aboard initially survived, but later died of its injuries. DS9 : " The Ship ". On stardate Several days later, the inertial dampers had not been fully repaired and, while the ship could reach warp 6, Chief O'Brien added, " Don't expect a smooth ride ". DS9 : " For the Uniform ". This would be similar to how astronauts feel zero gravity because the gravity of the earth is pulling them and their ship the same amount. The ramjet ship in Poul Anderson's "Tau Zero" uses the same idea to let the ship accelerate at 20 g while the crew only feels 1 g.

In the book it's described as a field that pulls on every particle inside it evenly. Star Trek warp engines supposedly reduce the inertial mass of the ship, allowing the engines push it around and for it to enter subspace more easily, but that's a separate piece of technology from the inertial dampeners. My understanding of it is that the warp drive creates a localized, ship-centric gravity field.

Don't know if that's correct, but it makes sense As a race, we have become marvelous at manipulating the electroweak force and have just started to toy with the nuclear strong force.

Controlling gravity is what we will need to create an inertial dampener Inertia is a fundamental property of matter, for any kind of inertial dampener to work we'd need some fundamental shift in our understanding of the nature of matter and how it interacts with the universe. Fiction uses inertia dampeners as a plot device to allow reasonable travel times, any other justifications are just to make it easier to swallow for the hard science fiction crowd.

If we have warp drive there is no inertia? ST need dampener because its impulse drive could generate up to g Acceleration up to g are not uncommon, ST manual. You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Paste as plain text instead. Only 75 emoji are allowed. Display as a link instead. Clear editor. Upload or insert images from URL. Share More sharing options Followers 0. Reply to this topic Start new topic. Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3. Recommended Posts. SeventhArchitect Posted March 1, Posted March 1, Well, as far as I know, you could start with: What would absorb the inertia?

How could that inertia be turned to nothing without breaking Newton's laws? All of that is an example of explaining what inertial energy is.