Terrible design feature those windows in those cut-outs. Dust and debris can easily get stuck there and can cause mayor damage to the hull.
The idea that we have different orientations for gravity isn't realistic either. How does that work? Its up in the upper side of the saucer and also up for the under side, so the saucer has two roofs? Anyway, as I remember from those diagrams that were also in the shows and showed a cut through of the ship with all the decks, up was up and down was down, everywhere.
A lot of startrek ship design, original CBS and Cryptics doesn'make any sense. Take the warp core. It is a cylindrical object and it placed verical in a hull that has a cylindrical form. Makes sense, eh.
The bit with the dust and debris in startrek is non existent, that's what the navigational deflector is for.
It is mentioned in an episode of TNG when they are being fired at by lasers, riker says that the weapons aren't powerful enough to go through the navigational shields.
I don't understand how swapping out the bridge could so drastically change the roll of a ship. What on the bridge specifically, was different between someone on a 5 year exploration mission, or a 3 week tactical mission?
Different bridge stations, 5 year mission would need a healthy mix of stations to be prepared for anything but probably not great at any one, 3 week tactical would need more coms and tac stations as well as more people keeping track of everything like radar/sonar ops of the future, a 6 month science job could require more science stations and maybe a specialized station just for studying one anomoly.
There is also making the bridge modular to make it easier to retrofit new consoles and improved layouts. The new design would be built while the ship is still performing it's duties rather than having it in spacedock the whole time. Also the new design could be swapped out quick and easy for testing.
Join Date: Nobody cares.
"I'm drunk, whats your excuse for being an idiot?" - Unknown drunk man. :eek:
I don't understand how swapping out the bridge could so drastically change the roll of a ship. What on the bridge specifically, was different between someone on a 5 year exploration mission, or a 3 week tactical mission?
WHAAAAAAAT?!!
Are you telling me that the entire performance of a starship doesn't heavily depend on the Bridge Officer stations that are installed for the bridge crew? :eek:
I think what Taco's getting at is that the Ent-D was shown to have reconfigurable control consoles. You could repurpose the consoles that were already there almost endlessly, why go to the trouble of replacing the bridge?
Who says that gravity has to be the same orientation throughout the ship? In those areas the gravity could be at right angles compared to the bridge (for example).
Take a look at my ship's MSD linked in my sig. I was also annoyed by the "floor" windows, so I changed the gravity! I suspect that it was much easier for the ship designers of STO to just make the bottoms of saucers flat, not to mention saving polygons on a spot most people won't see that often. So the ships in STO don't solve the problem of being glass bottom boats with indented windows like the actual D.
I think what Taco's getting at is that the Ent-D was shown to have reconfigurable control consoles. You could repurpose the consoles that were already there almost endlessly, why go to the trouble of replacing the bridge?
I believe on more than one occasion it's implied (or flat out stated) that certain sensor or computer control connections are routed to specific stations.
I'm pretty sure the only reason swappable, modular bridges are something that gets discussed is because fans want/need an explanation for the fact that the Enterprise-A had three completely different bridges in its appearances...all of which were different from the original Enterprise refit bridges (because, of course its bridge looked completely different in its two appearances).
It's not really a logical idea, but it's the most logical explanation anyone could come up with.
Similarly, the TOS Enterprise model showed the turbolift shaft at the very back of the bridge, but the show's set had the lift at the back and to the side, in its traditional location. The solution? Why, the Enterprise's bridge was rotated 36 degrees, so the main viewer didn't face straight forward, but the turbolift was in the proper location! Why would this be a good idea? Who knows?!?!
My question: is there an actual on-screen mention of bridges being swappable, or is it just a fan theory, or perhaps something from a technical manual?
...talking to players is like being a mall Santa. Everyone immediately wants to tell you all of the things they want, and you are absolutely powerless to deliver 99% of them.
I'm pretty sure the only reason swappable, modular bridges are something that gets discussed is because fans want/need an explanation for the fact that the Enterprise-A had three completely different bridges in its appearances...all of which were different from the original Enterprise refit bridges (because, of course its bridge looked completely different in its two appearances).
It's not really a logical idea, but it's the most logical explanation anyone could come up with.
Similarly, the TOS Enterprise model showed the turbolift shaft at the very back of the bridge, but the show's set had the lift at the back and to the side, in its traditional location. The solution? Why, the Enterprise's bridge was rotated 36 degrees, so the main viewer didn't face straight forward, but the turbolift was in the proper location! Why would this be a good idea? Who knows?!?!
My question: is there an actual on-screen mention of bridges being swappable, or is it just a fan theory, or perhaps something from a technical manual?
I believe on more than one occasion it's implied (or flat out stated) that certain sensor or computer control connections are routed to specific stations.
It's from the TNG Tech Manual as several people have stated. But yes, it's a complete CYA contrivance meant to conveniently cover changes in set design. The -A is the most extreme example, but even the -D had 3-4 different bridges depending on how you look at it. The bridge changed between seasons 1 and 2, where the wood paneling on the sides was replaced by lockers and the Conn/Ops stations got new chairs. It changed again sometime between AGT and Generations to add additional consoles along the side ramps and elevate the command platform up a bit. The fourth would be the Yesterday's Enterprise version if you want to include that. It had the additional consoles and elevated command area we saw again in Generations, plus the extra central console on the tactical horseshoe and the big glass display behind tactical.
Could all this stuff have been done simply by renovating the interior? Sure. But it was probably faster just to stop off at a starbase, pop out the old bridge, and pop in a new one. The removed bridge module could then be taken back and renovated at the base's leisure for later reinstall into another ship.
One other thing is that according to the tech manual, it wasn't just the Galaxy's bridge that was modular, but the entire saucer. A starbase could pop out a wedge section of the saucer and drop in another one that contained completely different rooms than were there before. This was the explanation for how the ship always seemed to have exactly the kind of laboratory or whatever they needed at a given time, without having to account for them all at once. It also explains the sudden appearance of places like Ten Forward or the awesome astrometrics lab from Generations (which was totally different from the lame one in TNG: "Lessons"). A total contrivance for the convenience of the writers, but not implausible.
Parallels showed something like 12 different alternate realities. One of the most obvious changes in each was that the Enterprise had a different bridge. There were a wild array of other differences, but that was a big one.
Little addition: A bridge module is much more then the main-bridge interior area including the walls.
It's a complete section that consists all surrounding rooms, like ready-room and briefing lounge. Also the turbolift port that connects to the next section is part of this.
Little addition: A bridge module is much more then the main-bridge interior area including the walls.
It's a complete section that consists all surrounding rooms, like ready-room and briefing lounge. Also the turbolift port that connects to the next section is part of this.
I think what Taco's getting at is that the Ent-D was shown to have reconfigurable control consoles. You could repurpose the consoles that were already there almost endlessly, why go to the trouble of replacing the bridge?
Cause the Captain wanted a new chair??
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
only in STO where I can bring up an issue with Windows being affixed onto the saucer flooring and it gets hijacked into a 5 page debate about interlock able Bridge Stations.
All I'm saying is that swapping bridges, just for different console configurations seems like a tremendous amount of overkill.
"We need a new bathroom, swap out the whole first floor of this house."
Says someone who has never worked on aircraft. Every mechanic, everywhere would give their right arm for a way to swap out cockpits. Or lavs (toilets), or cabins, or engines, or anything. If I were designing a ship like the Galaxy class, and I expected there to be advances in technology during the life of the hull, I would do everything I could to make everything as modular as possible and based on a common design criteria. For example, we know in Star Trek that at some point between TNG and VOY, they switched out the isoliner chips for the bio-neural gel packs, which were supposed to be better in some way. Now, would you rather completely gut the bridge, rip out every single chip in there, rewire the whole thing to accept the gel packs? Or would you rather be able to rip the entire bridge out, put in a new bridge with all the gel packs already in place, and the only thing you might have to actually change would be the interface ports?
You use the same principle in computers today. No one fixes a hard drive to be the latest and greatest, they just swap it with a new one.
Now swaping a bridge module out for a console change might be a bit much given that all the consoles are touch screen. But again, if there was a major change, like adding new consoles, or changign the physical layout of the seats or something, swapping the bridge might be easier than rewiring everything to the new location.
Also, given that replicators can create fairly complex items, again, it might be easier to just make a new bridge and fit it in rather than replicating all the spare parts and putting them in one at a time.
only in a Star Trek forum where I can bring up an issue with Windows being affixed onto the saucer flooring and it gets hijacked into a 5 page debate about interlock able Bridge Stations.
All I'm saying is that swapping bridges, just for different console configurations seems like a tremendous amount of overkill.
"We need a new bathroom, swap out the whole first floor of this house."
Well it only seems like overkill because it's so much effort to replace the first floor of a house; if you could do it in less than a day with no fuss or mess, as opposed to a week of refurbishment, wouldn't it be the logical choice?
Says someone who has never worked on aircraft. Every mechanic, everywhere would give their right arm for a way to swap out cockpits. Or lavs (toilets), or cabins, or engines, or anything. If I were designing a ship like the Galaxy class, and I expected there to be advances in technology during the life of the hull, I would do everything I could to make everything as modular as possible and based on a common design criteria. For example, we know in Star Trek that at some point between TNG and VOY, they switched out the isoliner chips for the bio-neural gel packs, which were supposed to be better in some way. Now, would you rather completely gut the bridge, rip out every single chip in there, rewire the whole thing to accept the gel packs? Or would you rather be able to rip the entire bridge out, put in a new bridge with all the gel packs already in place, and the only thing you might have to actually change would be the interface ports?
You use the same principle in computers today. No one fixes a hard drive to be the latest and greatest, they just swap it with a new one.
Now swaping a bridge module out for a console change might be a bit much given that all the consoles are touch screen. But again, if there was a major change, like adding new consoles, or changign the physical layout of the seats or something, swapping the bridge might be easier than rewiring everything to the new location.
Also, given that replicators can create fairly complex items, again, it might be easier to just make a new bridge and fit it in rather than replicating all the spare parts and putting them in one at a time.
The mechanics might like the idea, but would the airline pay for it? :P
If the Enterprise D was modular it would have expansion joints of some kind that would be very obvious to see, and an un-mistakable feature of the ship. Truth is she can only separate into two pieces quickly, save for the nacelles. A feature that often hindered filming as much as it boosted it. Considering it was this great innovative feature of the Galaxy class at the time. Not to mention the snazzy windows.
Modular design IS popular with todays shipbuilding techniques
Lyndon Brewer: 20% chance to capture enemy ship for 60 seconds on successful use of boarding party.
If the Enterprise D was modular it would have expansion joints of some kind that would be very obvious to see, and an un-mistakable feature of the ship. Truth is she can only separate into two pieces quickly, save for the nacelles. A feature that often hindered filming as much as it boosted it. Considering it was this great innovative feature of the Galaxy class at the time. Not to mention the snazzy windows.
Modular design IS popular with todays shipbuilding techniques
Would they be obvious? or with the advanced construction techniques and technologies might they be smaller and not so obvious? Who can say. I think you're right though, for quickly separating while in spaceflight the saucer/stardrive and a couple other things would be the only practical ones. Any other swapping out of modules would take a starbase.
I don't recall it being referenced directly in dialogue, however the Next Generation Technical Manual has an entire chapter dedicated to bridge design which makes frequent reference to the modularity of the design. Further, various production staff, including Okuda and I beleive Drexler have mentioned this as a fact, mainly to cover their asses when one observes that multiple starships of the same class seem to have different bridges (a lot of which are just the battle bridge redressed).
Also, it's on Memory Alpha... so semi-canon I suppose.
For the record, half of the purpose of the Tech Manual was to explain the bad design decisions and other common sense violations.
Says someone who has never worked on aircraft. Every mechanic, everywhere would give their right arm for a way to swap out cockpits. Or lavs (toilets), or cabins, or engines, or anything. If I were designing a ship like the Galaxy class, and I expected there to be advances in technology during the life of the hull, I would do everything I could to make everything as modular as possible and based on a common design criteria. For example, we know in Star Trek that at some point between TNG and VOY, they switched out the isoliner chips for the bio-neural gel packs, which were supposed to be better in some way. Now, would you rather completely gut the bridge, rip out every single chip in there, rewire the whole thing to accept the gel packs? Or would you rather be able to rip the entire bridge out, put in a new bridge with all the gel packs already in place, and the only thing you might have to actually change would be the interface ports?
You use the same principle in computers today. No one fixes a hard drive to be the latest and greatest, they just swap it with a new one.
Now swaping a bridge module out for a console change might be a bit much given that all the consoles are touch screen. But again, if there was a major change, like adding new consoles, or changign the physical layout of the seats or something, swapping the bridge might be easier than rewiring everything to the new location.
Also, given that replicators can create fairly complex items, again, it might be easier to just make a new bridge and fit it in rather than replicating all the spare parts and putting them in one at a time.
I think you're misinterpreting me. Though it's true I've never worked on aircraft. . . (though I do work with modular bits all day every day).
I think the idea, in general, is sound. I can see how it would be useful to swap out the entire bridge cake on one ship for a new one if sufficient advances had been made.
My beef is that it doesn't go far enough. If you're going to have a modular bridge system, you would make those parts interchangeable between multiple different ships. I think being able to take a damaged bridge off of an Intrepid, and stick on a functional bridge from a retired Galaxy, would be great.
As for Bio-Neural Gel packs, my point there is that sure, you might save a day or two doing the bridge, but those gel packs are laced throughout the ship, and you will have weeks, or months doing the rest. That tiny savings hardly seems worth all of the crazy over-engineering necessary to make a modular bridge in the first place. If you already had the tech, sure, I would gladly use it.
My beef is that it doesn't go far enough. If you're going to have a modular bridge system, you would make those parts interchangeable between multiple different ships. I think being able to take a damaged bridge off of an Intrepid, and stick on a functional bridge from a retired Galaxy, would be great.
I see no reason one couldn't do just that. Also, don't we all do that in game anyway? :rolleyes:
Comments
The bit with the dust and debris in startrek is non existent, that's what the navigational deflector is for.
It is mentioned in an episode of TNG when they are being fired at by lasers, riker says that the weapons aren't powerful enough to go through the navigational shields.
More to the point however, its all make believe.
Different bridge stations, 5 year mission would need a healthy mix of stations to be prepared for anything but probably not great at any one, 3 week tactical would need more coms and tac stations as well as more people keeping track of everything like radar/sonar ops of the future, a 6 month science job could require more science stations and maybe a specialized station just for studying one anomoly.
There is also making the bridge modular to make it easier to retrofit new consoles and improved layouts. The new design would be built while the ship is still performing it's duties rather than having it in spacedock the whole time. Also the new design could be swapped out quick and easy for testing.
"I'm drunk, whats your excuse for being an idiot?" - Unknown drunk man. :eek:
WHAAAAAAAT?!!
Are you telling me that the entire performance of a starship doesn't heavily depend on the Bridge Officer stations that are installed for the bridge crew? :eek:
My character Tsin'xing
Take a look at my ship's MSD linked in my sig. I was also annoyed by the "floor" windows, so I changed the gravity! I suspect that it was much easier for the ship designers of STO to just make the bottoms of saucers flat, not to mention saving polygons on a spot most people won't see that often. So the ships in STO don't solve the problem of being glass bottom boats with indented windows like the actual D.
I believe on more than one occasion it's implied (or flat out stated) that certain sensor or computer control connections are routed to specific stations.
"We need a new bathroom, swap out the whole first floor of this house."
If it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
It's not really a logical idea, but it's the most logical explanation anyone could come up with.
Similarly, the TOS Enterprise model showed the turbolift shaft at the very back of the bridge, but the show's set had the lift at the back and to the side, in its traditional location. The solution? Why, the Enterprise's bridge was rotated 36 degrees, so the main viewer didn't face straight forward, but the turbolift was in the proper location! Why would this be a good idea? Who knows?!?!
My question: is there an actual on-screen mention of bridges being swappable, or is it just a fan theory, or perhaps something from a technical manual?
My character Tsin'xing
Could all this stuff have been done simply by renovating the interior? Sure. But it was probably faster just to stop off at a starbase, pop out the old bridge, and pop in a new one. The removed bridge module could then be taken back and renovated at the base's leisure for later reinstall into another ship.
One other thing is that according to the tech manual, it wasn't just the Galaxy's bridge that was modular, but the entire saucer. A starbase could pop out a wedge section of the saucer and drop in another one that contained completely different rooms than were there before. This was the explanation for how the ship always seemed to have exactly the kind of laboratory or whatever they needed at a given time, without having to account for them all at once. It also explains the sudden appearance of places like Ten Forward or the awesome astrometrics lab from Generations (which was totally different from the lame one in TNG: "Lessons"). A total contrivance for the convenience of the writers, but not implausible.
I'm not even sure how many different bridges they used for the Ent-D there.
Technically only one of them is the real one but still.
My character Tsin'xing
Real? That word, I don't think it means what you think it means. ;- 0
Satcher@ferthanna
R'awlins@ferthanna
T'flup@ferthanna
My character Tsin'xing
I have seen the top of the mountain, and it is good
cause sometimes its party time!
It's a complete section that consists all surrounding rooms, like ready-room and briefing lounge. Also the turbolift port that connects to the next section is part of this.
Here is a good example: http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/galaxy-13.jpg (Point 39 shows its edges).
is it two or three prong?
cause sometimes its party time!
Cause the Captain wanted a new chair??
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
Says someone who has never worked on aircraft. Every mechanic, everywhere would give their right arm for a way to swap out cockpits. Or lavs (toilets), or cabins, or engines, or anything. If I were designing a ship like the Galaxy class, and I expected there to be advances in technology during the life of the hull, I would do everything I could to make everything as modular as possible and based on a common design criteria. For example, we know in Star Trek that at some point between TNG and VOY, they switched out the isoliner chips for the bio-neural gel packs, which were supposed to be better in some way. Now, would you rather completely gut the bridge, rip out every single chip in there, rewire the whole thing to accept the gel packs? Or would you rather be able to rip the entire bridge out, put in a new bridge with all the gel packs already in place, and the only thing you might have to actually change would be the interface ports?
You use the same principle in computers today. No one fixes a hard drive to be the latest and greatest, they just swap it with a new one.
Now swaping a bridge module out for a console change might be a bit much given that all the consoles are touch screen. But again, if there was a major change, like adding new consoles, or changign the physical layout of the seats or something, swapping the bridge might be easier than rewiring everything to the new location.
Also, given that replicators can create fairly complex items, again, it might be easier to just make a new bridge and fit it in rather than replicating all the spare parts and putting them in one at a time.
Nouveau riche LTS member
There you go.
Well it only seems like overkill because it's so much effort to replace the first floor of a house; if you could do it in less than a day with no fuss or mess, as opposed to a week of refurbishment, wouldn't it be the logical choice?
My character Tsin'xing
Modular design IS popular with todays shipbuilding techniques
cause sometimes its party time!
Would they be obvious? or with the advanced construction techniques and technologies might they be smaller and not so obvious? Who can say. I think you're right though, for quickly separating while in spaceflight the saucer/stardrive and a couple other things would be the only practical ones. Any other swapping out of modules would take a starbase.
For the record, half of the purpose of the Tech Manual was to explain the bad design decisions and other common sense violations.
I think you're misinterpreting me. Though it's true I've never worked on aircraft. . . (though I do work with modular bits all day every day).
I think the idea, in general, is sound. I can see how it would be useful to swap out the entire bridge cake on one ship for a new one if sufficient advances had been made.
My beef is that it doesn't go far enough. If you're going to have a modular bridge system, you would make those parts interchangeable between multiple different ships. I think being able to take a damaged bridge off of an Intrepid, and stick on a functional bridge from a retired Galaxy, would be great.
As for Bio-Neural Gel packs, my point there is that sure, you might save a day or two doing the bridge, but those gel packs are laced throughout the ship, and you will have weeks, or months doing the rest. That tiny savings hardly seems worth all of the crazy over-engineering necessary to make a modular bridge in the first place. If you already had the tech, sure, I would gladly use it.
I see no reason one couldn't do just that. Also, don't we all do that in game anyway? :rolleyes: