Timeline for Why are Starfleet bridges positioned so vulnerably?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 30, 2022 at 2:57 | comment | added | Sovereign Inquiry | Who says forward shields are the most powerful? | |
| Dec 11, 2017 at 9:45 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Dec 11, 2017 at 9:58 | |||||
| Oct 7, 2017 at 16:30 | history | edited | Ham Sandwich | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Jan 13, 2016 at 18:37 | comment | added | Thaddeus Howze | Many of these rules were violated after Roddenberry's death. DS9 is filled with such ship violations. | |
| Jan 13, 2016 at 18:01 | comment | added | Jazz | I note in passing that the USS Defiant from DS9 violates Rule #2 considerably -- there is 0% line of sight between the Defiant's nacelles, since they are flush-mounted along either side of the primary hull. | |
| Jan 13, 2016 at 12:54 | comment | added | DevSolar | "Most military naval vessels of [Roddenberry's] time" and a picture of a Zumwalt-class destroyer don't really mix. That program wasn't even started in Gene's lifetime. ;-) | |
| Jan 13, 2016 at 11:22 | comment | added | Holger | @Thaddeus: in combat, the placement of the bridge might be irrelevant when the shields are down. However, ships are not always in combat. And the placement of the bridge might be relevant on asteroid impact or such alike. Further, when the shields are not down, the damage seems to affect the outer structures first, as depicted in almost every Star Trek battle. We see lots of situations where the placement of the bridge backfires, including direct impacts. And don’t forget, the first reason why placing bridges on top of the spaceship makes no sense is that there is no “top” in space… | |
| Jan 13, 2016 at 11:12 | comment | added | Holger | @Steve: indeed, line of sight is irrelevant to modern warships too. And you can still have a small bridge for port navigation where that matters. But…you haven’t worked yourself the ranks up to become chief mate or captain to work deep down the ship and smell the oil. You have the right to see sunlight and breathe fresh air. On a starship, however, having the bridge on the outside does not pay off. | |
| Jan 12, 2016 at 17:57 | comment | added | Lucas | The future Enterprise in All Good Things had three nacelles. | |
| Jan 12, 2016 at 13:19 | comment | added | Steve | "might want to be able to SEE their enemy with binoculars or other optical equipment" - As a former US Navy member, the bridge crew probably makes the most use out of being able to directly see when navigating in port or mooring. You don't really want your enemy too close :) . Also, it's possible on some ship to control the vessel completely from engineering. However, it makes one feel better to actually see where the large, heavy, expensive ship is going. | |
| Jan 12, 2016 at 13:05 | comment | added | T.J. Crowder | Of course, these design rules have been violated more than once, such as the Saladin and Hermes class ships with a single nacelle (and I'm sure I've seen others). They always jumped out at me. | |
| Jan 12, 2016 at 9:35 | comment | added | Luaan | Bridges on naval military vessels tend to be expendable. Sure, they tend to host your command staff, but the ship doesn't stop working just because you destroy the bridge and kill the command staff - every other piece of the ship tends to be autonomous to an extent. Even some Star Trek ships have redundancy - we've seen the Enterprise-D has a backup bridge, for example - and the backup bridge is much less exposed. Star Wars military ships are an even better example of the "naval tradition" - the big guns on Star Destroyers have their own power sources and targeting systems, for example. | |
| Jan 12, 2016 at 3:08 | comment | added | Johnny | @NickT - That article image shows a ship appearing on the bridge viewscreen, not a window, so it's not a good example of ships in windows appearing closer than they should be, a viewscreen can show a magnified view. | |
| Jan 12, 2016 at 1:38 | comment | added | Nick T | Sci-fi writers, generally, have no sense of scale. (note the article image). | |
| Jan 12, 2016 at 1:18 | comment | added | user11521 |
In space, this makes no sense, since the enemy is far beyond the range of normal vision. In some episode crew members look out the window and actually see nearby ships when in fact they probably should be too far away to see!
|
|
| Jan 11, 2016 at 22:14 | comment | added | Praxis | Beautiful answer, Thaddeus. +1 | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 19:31 | comment | added | Thaddeus Howze | Perhaps. I related to it immediately as former Navy personnel, so I can understand, but given their technology it didn't HAVE to be there for any reason other than aesthetics. | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 19:29 | comment | added | KutuluMike | since Federation vessels are ostensibly not combat vessels, perhaps his goal was to put the bridge right out in front as a sign of openness? | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 19:18 | history | answered | Thaddeus Howze | CC BY-SA 3.0 |