posted
Roddenberry had rules for the design of Federation starships. One was that the Bridge had to be on top. Is there a plausible treknical explanation for this?
-------------------- Never fear... Sargon is here.
Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, it's just as plausible as putting bridges on top of battleships huge towers
With ST firepower it is rather pointless to try to put bridge deep into ship if, say... Klingon torpedo can punch through the primary hull of Enterprise in ST6 (at least I think it punched through it... )
And as we have seen in "Year of Hell" and "Nemesis" bridges are rather tough to destroy
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
some Trek authors have addressed the issue in more length, stating that the bridge needs to be on top of the computer core but under a sensor dome for the navigations and gyro thingys to work right. others cite interference in systems caused by adjacent ship systems causing controls to respond inefficiently, leading to the control area being segregated from any other power system (other state that since the bridge, for maximum efficiency, must be hard-wired to the ships power grid, causes a lot of the exploding console syndrome that would seem to violate future OSHA regulations.. also , this is compounded by the fact that enemy weapons charge the ships power grid causing surges.
anywho, the gist of it is the power hardwires would be problematic to run through more densely populated areas of the ship like quarters, due to the volatility, and that ship power systems interfere with the speed and accuracy of control panel signals, and also that navigation requires the upper dome and computer core for some odd duotronic/isolinear reason.
its amaxing how, if you give Trekkies 35 years they can explain anything about TOS
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I believe the TNG Tech manual explains it to the gist of: If the shields fail, you're screwed no matter where the bridge is.
Basically, if the enemy can get through your shields, they can get through the hull and destroy the bridge whether it's on the top of the ship, or in the middle.
posted
I think its just for easy refit purposes. It would be easier to have a Plug-n-Play port on top and Bridge modules that can be replaced. Plus you can disintegrate the old module and use it for raw material.
-------------------- "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
We've seen many times how the outside of the ship can be damaged even with shields up, so it makes infinitely more sense to stick it in the middle, surrounded by 10 metres of armour plating and multiple-redundancy shields.
And why would you need to refit a bridge anyway? What can the E-E's bridge do that the E-D's couldn't? (Joystick notwithstanding)
And if you really wanted to refit it for some unknown reason, you could still refit one in the middle of the ship. In fact, on Galaxies, you could have the main bridge where the battle bridge is, and if you really wanted to you could separate to replace it.
And the comparison with modern naval ships doesn't work. The "bridge" on naval ships has to be where it is so the OOD/OOW can see what's going on, which isn't necessary in a viewscreen-equipped starship. The real "command centre" is well protected in the centre of the ship.
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
I'd go with the "Federation ships aren't warships" argument, but the fact that the Klingons also put their bridges on top and out in the open makes me think there must be a technical reason behind it. Klingons are brave, but they're not THAT suicidal.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Perhaps the device drivers to run more advanced sensors installed on the last visit to SB come loaded in the bridge. Perhaps the new bridge has a better and more efficient subprocessor.
But it is really a silly idea, as you say. However I think we could keep the bridge module idea intact and keep the bridge inside protected by the armor. The answer? Transport.
If it could be done, transporting the new bridge module into the space where the old one is would be really effective. That way, the Command and Control center would be protected, and you could have the latest version of MSBridge in the ship.
-------------------- "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
posted
The fundamental reason might be that bridges are not really all that important.
...In TNG anyway. Since when did a command decision made by the bridge crew affect the outcome of a battle?
There are worthier things to be buried within the hull for protection. Things that prolong the life of a starship in practice. Main engineering, or fuel tanks, or shield generators, or the computer cores. If burying the bridge within would mean leaving a computer core exposed, surely a sane starship engineer would refuse such a swap.
The crew is probably relatively superfluous to the operation of the ship, despite contrary pretenses. At least when it comes to combat. And the engineers notwithstanding.
posted
Then again, the XO does a valuable job as part of the main command crew. If disastrous combat casualties really were an issue, then there should be a *complete* duplicate of the bridge crew standing by to take over. And, as I mentioned in another thread, probably not in the chain-of-command order of #1,3,5,7 on the main bridge and #2,4,6,8 on the secondary, but with #1-4 working together and #5-8 standing by.
Which, for all we know, may be exactly what Starfleet is doing. The secondary bridges of the Enterprises could very well be constantly manned, at least in combat. Not even "Brothers" or "Disaster" truly contradict that.
posted
That's a valid point. Just because Picard never mentions the backup command crew in the battle bridge, doesn't mean it isn't standard procedure for that post to be manned as soon as yellow or red alert is initiated.
Were there people already in the Battle Bridge the first time we saw it in Encounter at Farpoint?
In "Disaster", it's very possible that the back-up crew was going through a similar storyline, trying to save the ship, at the same time the main characters were doing their thing. In fact, with over 1000 people on board, I can't imagine their weren't other groups trying to figure out what was going on.
Shelby to officers on main bridge: "Crusher, Carteno, Gleason, report to the Battle Bridge."
Further evidence of it not being crewed at all times. Did T'su and Solis go down from the main bridge with Geordi? Or were they already there? It's been a while since I saw "The Arsenal of Freedom"...
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
