Bridge Modules

Discussion in 'Trek Tech' started by Cmdr.Druss, Apr 18, 2012.

  1. Ian Keldon

    Ian Keldon Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2011
    Actually, they seem more commonplace than ever:

    • at least 3 different Miranda class bridges (Lantree, Brattain, and Saratoga)
    • 2 different Nebula class bridges (Prometheus [in "Second Sight"] and Sutherland)
    • 2 different Constellation bridges (Stargazer and Hathaway)
    • Ambassador class bridge (Enterprise-C)
    • Oberth class (Tsilokovsky),
    • Prometheus class (Prometheus in "Message in a Bottle")
    • 3 different Galaxy class (Enterprise-D [series], Odyssey, and Enterprise-D ["Generations'])
    • Excelsior class (Hanson's ship at Wolf 359)
     
  2. SWHouston

    SWHouston Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Location:
    Houston, Tx. U.S.A.
    Ian,

    Your list though quite comprehensive, lists Bridges of similar
    construction, not necessarily modular.

    My concept of "modular" is somewhat "plug and play".
    I think that is what the OP was trying to get across...right ? :confused:
     
  3. Ian Keldon

    Ian Keldon Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2011
    Many of those bridges are quite different in configuration, even when used on the same class of ship (for example the extreme difference between the Nebula-class Sutherland and the Prometheus bridges).

    The easiest way to explain differences so radical are "modules", which are indeed as you say "plug and play". Far easier to swap out the module than it is to tear out the interior of the bridge deck and rebuild from either the frame out or hull in.

    Mind you, simply swapping out bridge modules is not all that would be done in a refit for mission change. Changing bridges affects only the ship's C3 (Command, Control, and Communications) capabilities.
    Other changes would be made to sensor platforms, weapons systems, etc.
     
  4. Tribble Herder

    Tribble Herder Lieutenant Commander

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2012
    Besides, you wanna try an fit one of those consoles in a turbolift?
     
  5. The Green Mushroom

    The Green Mushroom Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2001
    Location:
    United States
    The idea of a bridge that can be popped in and out as needed does make sense, considering where it is and what we can already do with computers.

    But the thought does beg the question--it is it really smart to put the bridge on top of the ship at such an exposed position? Wouldn't it make much more sense for the bridge to be in the middle of the ship even on the most peaceful of missions? It is not like the thing has a window the helmsman needs to look out.
     
  6. Albertese

    Albertese Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 3, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    The weapons and defensive technologies of this period make this kind of a non-issue. The shields can protect the ship from any damage that might strike near the outer hull and threaten the bridge. On the other hand, if the shields are gone then most anyone's weapon will burn right through and make the exact depth of the command center from the outer hull pretty unimportant. Throughout the series, any ship that was fired on while unshielded was in for some pretty bad news.

    It's fair to say that there is no real "safest part of the ship" in this respect.

    --Alex
     
  7. SWHouston

    SWHouston Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Location:
    Houston, Tx. U.S.A.
    From a FanFic point of view, I'd...

    Put them in them in a more protected area,
    Give them a small Power Source,
    Have individual "local" shields just for the Bridge,
    (less likely to be damaged or transported into),
    Separate (from ship) Environmental and Gravity,
    Maybe even a detachable unit, with their own propulsion,
    And possibly limit entry to a site/site transporter.

    IMHO ;)

    OH YEA, and a Bathroom ! :techman:
    TWO if there's a Bolian Crewmember :eek:
     
  8. Timo

    Timo Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    What I meant was that the "modularity" aspect of them would seem to be undermined by the fact that they aren't interchangeable between the classes. That is, while Starfleet still likes to create different interiors for different individual starships, the "standard module" of the Constitution, Miranda and Constellation starships plus some other kitbashes from that era is not matched by any sort of a "standard module" for the 24th century.

    Furthermore, the different interiors seen for, say, Nebula bridges do not directly suggest the swapping of bridge-sized modules, as their very shapes differ so radically (while the exterior of the ship remains "standard"). For all we know, we are seeing different rooms within these vast vessels instead.

    Timo Saloniemi
     
  9. Ian Keldon

    Ian Keldon Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2011
    Not so. Modularity doesn't imply inter-class compatability.

    Example: Many of the electronics packages on our fighters and bombers today are modular, and intended for quick swapping out for maintenance/replacement.

    That said, you wouldn't put an F-15 radar module in a B-2 bomber.

    We don't know that either.

    Not supported by any evidence. they are all clearly identified and identifiable as Bridges.
     
  10. Gagarin

    Gagarin Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Mr. Scott's Guide sort of got into this, using an on screen-bit from TWOK. Basically the bridge dome (and B and C deck) would have a secondary shield system...that covers surprise attacks to the bridge, boarding parties, and the like. It would go up on Yellow Alert and would be really strong protective bubble. There's also batteries and life support dedicated to just the bridge.

    I think in Trek the bridge is supposed to have massive shielding (in shields and...uh, duranium(?)..and they're basically domes or semi-spheres so that helps. But it isn't going to take a direct hit from a torpedo unshielded. In the core of the ship I think you'll find sickbay, the main computer system's bulk, and auxiliary control.

    Maybe the original thinking was the bridge would be closer and directly tied into to the sensors and scanners and communications antenna, and just a sense of 'front window' looking out from the superstructure kind of thing....
     
  11. SWHouston

    SWHouston Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Location:
    Houston, Tx. U.S.A.
    AWW Shucks !,

    I was so pleased with my "original" creative thinking epesode.
    (I gotta watch that in the future) :guffaw:
     
  12. DavidGutierrez

    DavidGutierrez Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2012
    Location:
    Texas

    Yet, this strike me as unnecessary maintenance when the computer control panels themselves are supposed to be easily reprogrammable. We've seen countless episodes depict one computer station taking the functions of another at a moment's notice. With this kind of capability, why would Starfleet need to swap an entire bridge module just for one mission?

    The idea behind Roddenberry's 24th century was that most of the applicable methods we use today are obsolete by then, so what we would do today doesn't strike me as a reasonable template for what Starfleet would do then.

    By the way, I'm new to the TrekBBS and this is my first post. Howdy! :bolian:
     
  13. Tribble Herder

    Tribble Herder Lieutenant Commander

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2012
    If you're outfitting a ship for a purely military mission, one might want a more robust setup, different helm and fire control systems, reinforced structural support, that sort of thing.

    Now, compare two or three weeks of replacing and patching systems vs. a few hours to maybe a day to just swap out the whole bridge module.
     
  14. SWHouston

    SWHouston Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Location:
    Houston, Tx. U.S.A.
    Greetings David, welcome to the Forum :techman:
     
  15. Ian Keldon

    Ian Keldon Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2011
    1) Hardware solutions are always preferable to software solutions over the long term. Software is too easily corrupted.

    2) The ability to swap modules is not just a reconfiguration speed up, but a general maintenance and overhaul speed up.
     
  16. DavidGutierrez

    DavidGutierrez Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2012
    Location:
    Texas

    Thanks! This place is awesome!
     
  17. DavidGutierrez

    DavidGutierrez Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2012
    Location:
    Texas

    Would this sort of ultra-modularity defeat the purpose of having different types of ships, then? Why have a science vessel when you can just swap out portions of a cruiser?
     
  18. Tribble Herder

    Tribble Herder Lieutenant Commander

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2012
    You can only modify a general purpose ship so much before you'd be better off with a science vessel built as such from the keel up, but that's the kind of ship you'd send in after another ship had identified the subject (new planet, nebula, moon sized amoeba, whatever) to move in and do a more detailed study.

    It's a good deal cheaper, on the other hand, to build a lot of multipurpose ships and just have different options packages, easily swapped out should the need arise. Then just build a few specialty ships for those rare occasions when a regular ship isn't enough for the job.
     
  19. blssdwlf

    blssdwlf Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    Don't forget that the TOS/TFS ships didn't really feature control panels that were easily re-programmable. Many or I'd say most of the panels were task specific.
     
  20. Timo

    Timo Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    I'd argue the exact opposite, as the typical panel consisted of undifferentiated rows of unmarked buttons. Surely any sort of functionality for that interface would have to be user-defined - with the user deciding what function he or she wanted a specific button to execute, and setting the color (and perhaps the invisibly tiny labeling) to reflect that function.

    Essentially the same as with the TNG flat panels, only with "passive" tactile feedback on the fingertips, rather than whatever "active" feedback those flat surfaces are giving (tiny electric jolts or vibrations, tiny changes in surface contours).

    Case in point, certain smaller European navies - say, the Danes, who are currently essentially turning their entire fleet into a series of module carrier hulls. The smallest are "patrol boats", accepting one fighting module; the largest are "frigates", floating command centers and amphibious assault units that can take five of these "StanFlex" modules. A couple of hours' work allows the patrol boat to become a minelayer, a minesweeper or a missile boat.

    Modularity loses its allure when your navy is wealthy enough to afford separate minelayers, ones that you don't lose when you want missile boats instead...

    Timo Saloniemi