The bridge is the nerve center of any Federation vessel. Its position is actually justifiable from a perspective of design and aesethetics. But why is the bridge not located in the center of the ship itself?
There are several reasons.
The first is obviously the aesthetic for the show's visuals. It was easier for the audience to accept the importance of the command center on the ship if it could be viewed from the outside.
The second reason is a little more subtle, because it crosses the line from television production to "what if?" What if Starships were real? Why would you want your command crew exposed like that?
Well, it was mentioned before that a small command module would be heavily armoured, reducing the risk of the entire module being blown clear off. But more than that, there is a tighter control of access points to the Bridge by having it on its own deck: Deck 1.
Even with as many doors to and from the Bridge as the Enterprise-D had, the physical access from the rest of the ship was strictly controllable. You could only reach Deck 1 by the turbolifts (and presumably a Jeffries' tube). In case of boarding, a Starship's bridge could be effectively sealed off to protect the Captain and command crew, as well as all command functions.
If the Bridge was located in the middle of the saucer section, it could be prone to having the equipment tampered with by way of cutting through the walls. Holes could be drilled through the walls to shoot at the command crew with little risk to the attackers.
In these design choices, you have to weigh what the bigger risk is. And if an enemy has the ability to destroy a Starship, and is attempting to do so, targetting the bridge is not a primary goal. However, if they intend to take the ship in one piece, the intact command module and a living Captain is essential.
the borg ship designs are the result of pure utter laziness, sphere, cube, diamond (tilted cube) and little rectangular coffns. o and their giant colony cylinadars. honestly not one bit of imagination went into making borg vessels!
Borg build for function over form. Not in itself an unreasonable priority for them. They just have different priorities for their constructions.
Yeah, but spheres are a pain for construction with all of the curved surfaces... you need lots of right angles instead... like a cube...
-- Smoov
Nah, that's only if you start with flat sheets. Borg probably have rounded molds of some sort for casting hull plate. (and something similar for the ribs, etc.)
Well, from starship designs I have seen (in everything from Halo to Battlestar Galactica, to Star Wars and Star Trek) the bridges seem to be differing depending on its purpose.
Take the Executor for instance. Or any Star Destroyer for that matter. The cruiser of the Galactic Empire bristled with weaponry so that no enemy starship or starfighter could destroy it, but as with the Death Star, most of us know what happened to the Executor. A small fighter rammed its vulnerable bridge, killing the command crew and sending it plummeting into the Death Star.
Now, a sturdier design. Let's take the Covenant CCS-class battlecruiser for example here. The bridge was set in the meat of the ship, and human technology couldn't penetrate the shields, much less the armor of one of these monsters. But the plasma weaponry the Covenant used batted away human ships with relative ease.
The only way to take one down was to either outmaneuver and just whale away at it, or use the ships gravity lift that it uses to ferry troops and supplies to the surface for invasions. The Defiant's bridge is kinda sort of in the middle much like the Galactica, unlike the Excelsior-class or the Galaxy, which are exposed to say... a concentrated phaser blast to the saucer, destroying the crew.
Personally, I prefer a starfighter. But given the chance I will command a battleship like the Sovereign or Negh'Var. Hell give me a B'rel and I'm happy. If my crew and I perish then that is the decision of fate. Nothing I can do will stop it.
Granted I have not taken the Kobayashi Maru because a) the test serves a lesson I already understand and b) because I want something more than 3 K'tinga-class ships to fight.
In closing, ships, no matter where you put the bridge, will still be damaged or destroyed.
Dreadnought class. Two times the size, three times the speed. Advanced weaponry. Modified for a minimal crew. Unlike most Federation vessels, it's built solely for combat.
IIRC, the nacelles on Voyager tilted at warp to minimize the damage to subspace. Later designs apparently figured out how to minimize damage without tilting the nacelles.
I'm gonna have to disagree about the Kelvin: it's lower engineering section also acted as a nacelle
And I say that because when George Kirk programmed a ramming course, we see the rear-end of Kelvin's nacelle/engineering hull light up with impulse power, while the upper one stayed dark (presumably due to damage).
That would be because the only nacelle on that ship was on the bottom. The hull segment on top was the engineering hull/reactor/nav-deflector/shuttlebay. NOT a warp nacelle.
The nacelles have line of sight along their entire length for more than half their vertical height.
IIRC, the nacelles on Voyager tilted at warp to minimize the damage to subspace. Later designs apparently figured out how to minimize damage without tilting the nacelles.
It was mentioned in at least one episode that Voyager's nacelles still caused subspace damage. It's not really clear why the nacelles folded down at impulse, really.
I personally think that BSG (The Re-imagined Series) has some of the more realistic space battles and HUMAN spaceships (I have no idea what's going on with the Cylon's :rolleyes:) and to me the CIC has more of a feel of a nerve center and command station than the bridges on Star Trek do some times.
Now I must go write my will before the angry Star Trek fans come and beat down my door. :P
According to the Next Gen Technical Manual, bridges are modular, and mounted on top, so that they can be easily upgraded or replaced as technology advances, resulting in a longer service life for the ship design.
I also think the problem is the "Bridge" on a Starfleet vessel is a combination of the bridge of a modern naval vessel and its Ops Room. On real ships the Bridge is only used for navigation and communication; weapons control and long-range surveillance are all done from the Ops Room deep inside the ship. The problem is that for a TV series it's better to lump everything into one room to keep as much of the cast on screen at once as possible.
The Covenant (Halo for those who may live under rocks :P ) ships had the bridge in the center most point of the ship aswell. When boarding UNSC ships, the Sangheli (Elites) noted one of their few respects for the humans in positioning the bridge at the extreme front of of their starships, a fact which they thought was quite honorable. Just a little fun fact from your resident nerd! :cool:
Anyhoo, while it would be safer in the center of the ship, you would have to rely on a lot of mechanics for visual flight. A smart adversary would look for a way to throw off your navigation sensors or crash your navigation computer all together. Sure, that would suck for a ship with a bridge near the front just as much (thats why I always thought having an actual window on the bridge was better that a view screen), but at least you would have a better sense of positioning when having to navigate without computer aids.
Vice Admiral Onyx Corvoe
U.S.S. Bandersnatch
Chimera Class Heavy Destroyer
"Bander"-Leader. "snatch"-To Kill
"The Jaws that Bite, the Claws that Catch"
I have another couple questions (that I'm sure some of the more technically knowledgeable Trek fans can answer) which are:
Why is it that everything on the ship seems to explode violently when some unrelated part of the ship is hit? (Voyager, for example, in the first season it seems like every time the ship takes a hit some interface behind Harry Kim overloads spraying sparks everywhere) Have these people never heard of fuses before?
Also, why do we never see artificial gravity fail when a ship is heavily damaged and power systems are offline? (aside from the fact that this would be very hard to do in a film studio) In several cases throughout the series we see all systems (including life support) fail or be shut down, yet artificial gravity remains functional.
Is there any actual technical explanation of these, or are they simply because this is a TV series so drama is required and they cannot be filmed in an actual 0G environment.
Probert talked about them at conventions years ago about how he and Roddenberry nailed them down before TNG.
For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure that those rules were made up after the fact to decanonize Franz Joseph's TOS Tech Manual, particularly the Federation-class dreadnought, which was much too warlike and military (*gasps, clutches pearls*) for Gene's happy fluffy utopian future and "peace navy". Go have a look at the Federation-class; it breaks every one of those arbitrary rules. We didn't get a new version of it - the triple-nacelled, phaser-cannon-packing, TRIBBLE-kicking future Enterprise-D from "All Good Things" - until Gene was dead and scattered in orbit.
IMO, those rules are as specific and spiteful as the city council passing an ordinance imposing crippling emissions and safety standards on all aqua 2004 Ford Tauruses, which just happens to be what the mayor's neighbor drives.
I have another couple questions (that I'm sure some of the more technically knowledgeable Trek fans can answer) which are:
Why is it that everything on the ship seems to explode violently when some unrelated part of the ship is hit? (Voyager, for example, in the first season it seems like every time the ship takes a hit some interface behind Harry Kim overloads spraying sparks everywhere) Have these people never heard of fuses before?
Also, why do we never see artificial gravity fail when a ship is heavily damaged and power systems are offline? (aside from the fact that this would be very hard to do in a film studio) In several cases throughout the series we see all systems (including life support) fail or be shut down, yet artificial gravity remains functional.
Is there any actual technical explanation of these, or are they simply because this is a TV series so drama is required and they cannot be filmed in an actual 0G environment.
While I feel the answer to the first is dramatic license, and to the second is the limitation of the filming studio, I can point out one or two things.
1. It could be said that the energy strike just is too large and overwhelms any deterents. I know I've seen enough of that in real life due to lightning strikes exceeding my clients' computer hardware protective measures. But the frequency of the issue in-story is a problem.
2. We've actually seen one instance of artificial gravity failure (though I believe it was a targeted system). Star Trek VI, when the Chancellor's ship was targeted. The latest Star Trek movie also has something of a gravitic moment on a ship, though I'll not say more lest it be a big spoiler for some.
Comments
There are several reasons.
The first is obviously the aesthetic for the show's visuals. It was easier for the audience to accept the importance of the command center on the ship if it could be viewed from the outside.
The second reason is a little more subtle, because it crosses the line from television production to "what if?" What if Starships were real? Why would you want your command crew exposed like that?
Well, it was mentioned before that a small command module would be heavily armoured, reducing the risk of the entire module being blown clear off. But more than that, there is a tighter control of access points to the Bridge by having it on its own deck: Deck 1.
Even with as many doors to and from the Bridge as the Enterprise-D had, the physical access from the rest of the ship was strictly controllable. You could only reach Deck 1 by the turbolifts (and presumably a Jeffries' tube). In case of boarding, a Starship's bridge could be effectively sealed off to protect the Captain and command crew, as well as all command functions.
If the Bridge was located in the middle of the saucer section, it could be prone to having the equipment tampered with by way of cutting through the walls. Holes could be drilled through the walls to shoot at the command crew with little risk to the attackers.
In these design choices, you have to weigh what the bigger risk is. And if an enemy has the ability to destroy a Starship, and is attempting to do so, targetting the bridge is not a primary goal. However, if they intend to take the ship in one piece, the intact command module and a living Captain is essential.
-- Smoov
My character Tsin'xing
Take the Executor for instance. Or any Star Destroyer for that matter. The cruiser of the Galactic Empire bristled with weaponry so that no enemy starship or starfighter could destroy it, but as with the Death Star, most of us know what happened to the Executor. A small fighter rammed its vulnerable bridge, killing the command crew and sending it plummeting into the Death Star.
Now, a sturdier design. Let's take the Covenant CCS-class battlecruiser for example here. The bridge was set in the meat of the ship, and human technology couldn't penetrate the shields, much less the armor of one of these monsters. But the plasma weaponry the Covenant used batted away human ships with relative ease.
The only way to take one down was to either outmaneuver and just whale away at it, or use the ships gravity lift that it uses to ferry troops and supplies to the surface for invasions. The Defiant's bridge is kinda sort of in the middle much like the Galactica, unlike the Excelsior-class or the Galaxy, which are exposed to say... a concentrated phaser blast to the saucer, destroying the crew.
Personally, I prefer a starfighter. But given the chance I will command a battleship like the Sovereign or Negh'Var. Hell give me a B'rel and I'm happy. If my crew and I perish then that is the decision of fate. Nothing I can do will stop it.
Granted I have not taken the Kobayashi Maru because a) the test serves a lesson I already understand and b) because I want something more than 3 K'tinga-class ships to fight.
In closing, ships, no matter where you put the bridge, will still be damaged or destroyed.
Dreadnought class. Two times the size, three times the speed. Advanced weaponry. Modified for a minimal crew. Unlike most Federation vessels, it's built solely for combat.
That would be because the only nacelle on that ship was on the bottom. The hull segment on top was the engineering hull/reactor/nav-deflector/shuttlebay. NOT a warp nacelle.
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080420191731/memoryalpha/en/images/d/d7/Maquis_raider_fires_on_the_Defiant%2C_FTU.jpg
The nacelles have line of sight along their entire length for more than half their vertical height.
It was mentioned in at least one episode that Voyager's nacelles still caused subspace damage. It's not really clear why the nacelles folded down at impulse, really.
Also, the most obvious reason was so you could pilot the ship by looking out the front window.
Now I must go write my will before the angry Star Trek fans come and beat down my door. :P
Anyhoo, while it would be safer in the center of the ship, you would have to rely on a lot of mechanics for visual flight. A smart adversary would look for a way to throw off your navigation sensors or crash your navigation computer all together. Sure, that would suck for a ship with a bridge near the front just as much (thats why I always thought having an actual window on the bridge was better that a view screen), but at least you would have a better sense of positioning when having to navigate without computer aids.
U.S.S. Bandersnatch
Chimera Class Heavy Destroyer
"Bander"-Leader. "snatch"-To Kill
"The Jaws that Bite, the Claws that Catch"
Why is it that everything on the ship seems to explode violently when some unrelated part of the ship is hit? (Voyager, for example, in the first season it seems like every time the ship takes a hit some interface behind Harry Kim overloads spraying sparks everywhere) Have these people never heard of fuses before?
Also, why do we never see artificial gravity fail when a ship is heavily damaged and power systems are offline? (aside from the fact that this would be very hard to do in a film studio) In several cases throughout the series we see all systems (including life support) fail or be shut down, yet artificial gravity remains functional.
Is there any actual technical explanation of these, or are they simply because this is a TV series so drama is required and they cannot be filmed in an actual 0G environment.
For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure that those rules were made up after the fact to decanonize Franz Joseph's TOS Tech Manual, particularly the Federation-class dreadnought, which was much too warlike and military (*gasps, clutches pearls*) for Gene's happy fluffy utopian future and "peace navy". Go have a look at the Federation-class; it breaks every one of those arbitrary rules. We didn't get a new version of it - the triple-nacelled, phaser-cannon-packing, TRIBBLE-kicking future Enterprise-D from "All Good Things" - until Gene was dead and scattered in orbit.
IMO, those rules are as specific and spiteful as the city council passing an ordinance imposing crippling emissions and safety standards on all aqua 2004 Ford Tauruses, which just happens to be what the mayor's neighbor drives.
While I feel the answer to the first is dramatic license, and to the second is the limitation of the filming studio, I can point out one or two things.
1. It could be said that the energy strike just is too large and overwhelms any deterents. I know I've seen enough of that in real life due to lightning strikes exceeding my clients' computer hardware protective measures. But the frequency of the issue in-story is a problem.
2. We've actually seen one instance of artificial gravity failure (though I believe it was a targeted system). Star Trek VI, when the Chancellor's ship was targeted. The latest Star Trek movie also has something of a gravitic moment on a ship, though I'll not say more lest it be a big spoiler for some.