But it would be bad news if the transporters go offline.
and it would be bad news if the shields failed in combat.
and it would be bad news if the antimatter containment failed.
and it would be bad news if the hull failed in space.
this is why we can't have nice things.
That all comes with the territory. It is better to have ships that are fallible, than to have none, and be stuck on one big rock (though the less fallible, or otherwise the less vulnerable, the better).
It would be bad news if a planet's (such as our own) magnetic field were to fail, weaken, or be overwhelmed, leaving us to be cooked or otherwise subjected to all the universe's radiation.
It would be bad news if a super-volcano were to erupt, especially if there is no way to help clear all the dust and soot that would be thrown up into the atmosphere.
It would be bad news if any sizable comet or asteroid were to hit, the bigger, the worse the news for the poor bastards that happen to be living on the planet in question. And heaven help them if a rouge black hole were to enter the system...
This is why we need these "nice things", and I think any civilization without them is vulnerable to extinction. But there is a line between using technology to enhance a vessels capabilities, and designing a ship where if that technology were to fail, the crew might not be as well off as they would be if they crewed a less radical design.
That is not to say that radical designs that take advantage of advanced technology aren't cool, but I'm just saying.