www.ditl.org

I thought we were talking about bringing birds back on board the carrier, not pilot ejection.

Anyway, don't you need to drop shield for landing?

BSG - oBSG, anyway - had land-through shields, evidenced by the fact that the bays weren't evacuated when craft came in the seemingly-open apertures. I imagine that TNG+ era 'Trek had something similar, because people had been in shuttle bays when shuttles embarked and there was no evidence of evacuation there either.

I speak about defensive shield ^^

Mikey wrote:BSG - oBSG, anyway - had land-through shields, evidenced by the fact that the bays weren't evacuated when craft came in the seemingly-open apertures. I imagine that TNG+ era 'Trek had something similar, because people had been in shuttle bays when shuttles embarked and there was no evidence of evacuation there either.

I think DM's talking about the main combat shields, not the bay atmospheric shields. In any event, it's disputable whether the old Galactica even had shields - the only evidence for them is Experiment in Terra, and all combat scenes indicate that she's either got hull-huggers or relies on superconductive armour.

Well, Galactica had some sort of force field keeping the inside in - e.g., "A Fire in Space." True, there's ambivalent evidence both for and against Galactica having true 'Trek style defensive shields. Considering just the 'Trek side, though, it stands to reason that if a forcefield can be penetrated by a massive body at landing speed, then shields would also. Unless, of course, there's some mystical hoodoo differently defining the operation of shields and force fields.

As I write this, I'm reminded of Holtzmann-effect shields from Dune - they can be penetrated by a body moving under a particular threshold speed, but not by a body moving faster than that.

The forcefield stops atmosphere on the landing pods.

Defensive shields stops incomings torpedos

Mikey wrote:Well, Galactica had some sort of force field keeping the inside in - e.g., "A Fire in Space."

Absolutely - that last sentence was referring specifically to combat shields.

Considering just the 'Trek side, though, it stands to reason that if a forcefield can be penetrated by a massive body at landing speed, then shields would also.

Possibly. Indeed, this property may be why shields have always been pretty poor against kinetic impacts. On the other hand, bay shields have a clear advantage for operating in such a manner, while combat shields do not.

As I write this, I'm reminded of Holtzmann-effect shields from Dune - they can be penetrated by a body moving under a particular threshold speed, but not by a body moving faster than that.

While Dune may have been the first to introduce such shields, they're pretty common. Not only do virtually all starship landing bay have them (Trek, Wars, BSG, etc) but they also strongly resemble Wars ground based shields - the Gungan shields in TPM, and Hoth theatre shield.

DarkMoineau wrote:The forcefield stops atmosphere on the landing pods.

Defensive shields stops incomings torpedos

I get that, I was referring to the manner of operation rather than the scale. I will admit, though, that the behind either instance may be completely different.

Captain Seafort wrote:On the other hand, bay shields have a clear advantage for operating in such a manner, while combat shields do not.

Unfortunately, I don't know of a canon reference which positively describes the absence or presence of such a "loophole" in shields.

Captain Seafort wrote:While Dune may have been the first to introduce such shields, they're pretty common. Not only do virtually all starship landing bay have them (Trek, Wars, BSG, etc) but they also strongly resemble Wars ground based shields - the Gungan shields in TPM, and Hoth theatre shield.

I referred to the Holtzmann effect in particular because the ability of a slow-moving body to penetrate them was specifically described as an innate property of the shield effect, immutable by any particular engineering. Also, Dune specifically mentioned this property as an essential (if unintentional) property, insofar as it allowed people to breathe - obviously a glaring difference between 'Trek and BSG bay shields. One is forced to wonder, then, how the 'Trek/BSG shield allows a (relatively) slow-moving shuttle or fighter through, but not an oxygen molecule.

Mikey wrote:One is forced to wonder, then, how the 'Trek/BSG shield allows a (relatively) slow-moving shuttle or fighter through, but not an oxygen molecule.

A property akin to the surface tension of a pool of water perhaps.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Mikey wrote:One is forced to wonder, then, how the 'Trek/BSG shield allows a (relatively) slow-moving shuttle or fighter through, but not an oxygen molecule.

A property akin to the surface tension of a pool of water perhaps.

Doubtful - once surface tension is broken it's broken, regardless of how temporarily. If that happened to a bay shield, there would be evidence of explosive decompression, even if it were contained soon after.

Let's get back on track. We're all over the place. The topic WAS bringing the birds back via transporter.

Insofar as shields, there is no reason shields can't be used on the ground. IIRC, didn't Voyager raise shields on the surface of a planet?

All you'd have to do it keep the bubble shield around the exposed part, and the skin shield on the bottom. You'd expose the landing struts, but that can't be helped.

Or, threre could be several different landings. A standard landing, a hot landing, a water landing, and so forth. Any and all could be used at different times to deploy troops to a certain location.

Mark wrote:The topic WAS bringing the birds back via transporter.

OK, then, simple - can't be done. You can't transport through a shield; and you can't drop shields from an active launch/recovery bay. Explosive decompression tends to be bad for the crew.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Mikey wrote:One is forced to wonder, then, how the 'Trek/BSG shield allows a (relatively) slow-moving shuttle or fighter through, but not an oxygen molecule.

A property akin to the surface tension of a pool of water perhaps.

Simple, the molecules atmosphere don't have the mass or force to push themselves past the power of the shield.

Deepcrush wrote:

Captain Seafort wrote:

Mikey wrote:One is forced to wonder, then, how the 'Trek/BSG shield allows a (relatively) slow-moving shuttle or fighter through, but not an oxygen molecule.

A property akin to the surface tension of a pool of water perhaps.

Simple, the molecules atmosphere don't have the mass or force to push themselves past the power of the shield.

So, such a shield would let anything in as long as it was massive enough - or, if we use the "force" part of your statement, was accelerating enough? That seems a bit untrustworthy. In any case, how would the force field stop a low-mass particle but not a more massive one?

*EDIT* I'm not saying that your idea can't be the case, just that I don't understand the mechanics involved.