All of these are just willfully misunderstanding the point of these things to the point of idiocy.
Usually, the rigid time constraints are shown to not work, and something else happens that solves the conundrum. Either that or the engineer overestimated the time with regards to security protocols, testing and so on, implying that cutting time will be significantly more risky.
The shields are offline because power generation is failing. Diverting power from life support is the last resort, implying that either we get the shields online at the expense of long-term life support for a small chance at survival, or keep them offline for a guaranteed death. It makes sense to divert power from life support.
They are frequently in unfamiliar or entirely deserted locations. Who has every close space station in mind at all times? Are you implying that someone on a long highway cannot be surprised by the distance to the next gas station if gas runs out?
This never happened.
This never happened.
I always held the opinion that “treknobabble” was largely internally consistent and made sense within the established technologies of the universe, with notable exceptions in the biology department (TNG: “Genesis” anyone?). I dislike when people make fun of Trek engineer speech as if it was completely incoherent made up words á la “it’s a unix system”. “Treknobabble” is consistent and believable, and I don’t think it’s cute to insinuate that it’s all some kind of silly in-joke.