The New USS Discovery....

[Captain of the USS Averof]

There's only one thing worse than having your ship's bridge on top and that's having the bridge on the bottom.

But, if the authors wanted it to be different and state a different size, they could.

But until they do, what was shown on screen is canon.

That one is study model #2, which is somewhat stubbier than study model #1, if the size of those things is any indication.

Study Model #2
View attachment 2721
Study Model #1
View attachment 2722

That's "study model #1". You can tell by the stubby nacelle pylons. As you can see, study model #2 has way longer pylons.

starships operate with a wide variety of sensors at their disposal that make a window outside irrelevant to the design.

That's a great point against the JJprise's windowscreen.

 

[fireproof78]

That's a great point against the JJprise's windowscreen.

Until the Bridge is removed from the top of the ship it is rather irrelevant if there is a window or not.

 

[137th Gebirg]

And even with modern military vessels, weapon control is inside the ship instead of being on the bridge.

Which is why the CIC in Nu-Battlestar Galactica was buried deep in the head of the ship, safe from the kind of kamikaze Cylon attack that seemed to plague TOS BSG every other week - one time almost killing Adama ("Fire in Space").

I 100% agree there is absolutely no reason to have the bridge so prominently positioned in a vulnerable and obvious-target-to-attack area.

Another one of Gene's brilliant "rules" of starship design...

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Another one of Gene's brilliant "rules" of starship design...

The fact that every modern aircraft or ship built by man has its cockpit or bridge either right in front or on the very top might have something to do with it.

 

[137th Gebirg]

The fact that every modern aircraft or ship built by man has its cockpit or bridge either right in front or on the very top might have something to do with it.

This is true, meta-speaking, but as someone else mentioned earlier, that is a direct product of two-dimensional seafaring tradition/best practice, where visual information (measured in tens-to-hundreds of miles) plays a part in tactical activity. When dealing with three-dimensional space on a scale of thousands to millions of miles, where weapons platforms operate at-or-near speed of light, or faster if operating in subspace, putting the bridge on top to "see" anything becomes more of a tactical liability than a benefit. Just ask TOS BSG Adama on that.

Starships have long range sensor platforms that can "see" things from light years away. Aside from aesthetics and visual balance, there is no reason why the bridge needs to be exposed and vulnerable in any way. Franz Joseph recognized this, which is how the Federation-class Dreadnaught came to be, which is, ironically, how Gene's silly "bridges are to be top and center of the primary hull" rule came to be, starting all this nonsense to begin with.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Commander Adama should consider himself lucky. Just ask the captains of the USS Saint Lo, USS Bismarck Sea and USS Ommaney Bay.

And when have we seen three-dimensional combat on a scale of millions of miles in Star Trek? 99% of Trek's battles are WVR battles (within the visual range of the combatants).

 

[Tom Servo]

The fact that every modern aircraft or ship built by man has its cockpit or bridge either right in front or on the very top might have something to do with it.

Yeah, but those aren't good comparisons for a starship, despite what the shows may think. The closest analogy would be a submarine, and the control room for those are in the middle of the ship. Now, if where the bridge was on a federation ship currently, there was actually a secondary bridge/observation dome, sort of like a subs conning tower and flying bridge, I could buy that.

 

[Psion]

Again, all this assumes that the only consideration for locating the Bridge is military and that it really is safer in the bowels of the ship. As soon as you consider the Bridge to be a module that plugs into the ship, possibly as part of a cap to the ship's computer core, then it starts to become advantageous to locate the bridge on the exterior.

And putting it at the center might not give it any more protection once you consider the impact of force fields and deflectors. With more surface area around a Bridge that juts up out of the hull, deflector array density might make that the most heavily-protected area.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Yeah, but those aren't good comparisons for a starship, despite what the shows may think. The closest analogy would be a submarine, and the control room for those are in the middle of the ship. Now, if where the bridge was on a federation ship currently, there was actually a secondary bridge/observation dome, sort of like a subs conning tower and flying bridge, I could buy that.

Like you said, even submarines had their conning tower located as high on the ship as possible, to give the conning team good visibility of the entirety of the ship itself and of ocean conditions and other vessels.

 

[Markonian]

An explanation I read a few weeks ago was, energy and torpedo weapons are so powerful they can damage anything in the ship. So the bridge wouldn't be better off inside.

 

[Mudd]

It's all after-the-fact babble used to justify design decisions that look cool.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Modern warships do have a bridge for normal operations, but the Command Center (Or Command Information Center/CIC) that is used during tactical operations is located deep inside the ship.

Then again, in TOS:Balance of Terror, the Enterprise's phasers were (for some mysterious reason) operated from a separate room that was not the bridge.

EDITED to correct the episode name.

 

[fireproof78]

It's all after-the-fact babble used to justify design decisions that look cool.

Exactly. Apparently this justifiable for the Constitution class, but not the Discovery.

 

[Ithekro]

Even in the mid-20th century, there were heavily armored CIC for battleships, carriers, and cruisers designed to keep the ships functional in combat while he bridge was exposed on the tower for better seakeeping outside of combat, and general comfort. Yet still many captains and admirals still commanded from the bridge anyway because they didn't like the cramped CIC rooms. Some even command on the flying bridge which is essentially outside. The USS New Jersey's CIC has something like 16 inches of armor around it and its basically behind the bridge.

 

[Mudd]

The fact that every modern aircraft or ship built by man has its cockpit or bridge either right in front or on the very top might have something to do with it.

 

[DrCorby]

It's all after-the-fact babble used to justify design decisions that look cool.

Exactly. While the decision to put the bridge at the top of the saucer may have been influenced by naval history and the backgrounds of Roddenberry and Justman, undoubtedly it was mostly a design decision. Look at the very first shot we see in the very first Star Trek episode filmed ("The Cage") -- we zoom in on the ship in flight and come in through a clear dome on top of the center of the saucer, revealing the bridge, humming with activity, centered on our brave captain. It's a shot designed to introduce the ship and captain in a dramatic way, in a mid-1960s action-adventure TV series. That was the bottom line for a lot of decisions made about that original Star Trek series, and it still is today. Make no mistake about it.

No, the bridge on top makes no sense, if we are talking tactics. Modern naval vessels do so because they need to be able to see far, and is tactically beneficial. But, starships operate with a wide variety of sensors at their disposal that make a window outside irrelevant to the design.

Several people have made this point; I just quoted @fireproof78 because it was put succinctly. I've been a fan of every incarnation of Star Trek for a very long time (to a greater or lesser extent), including the Abrams films, and I'm looking forward to Discovery. My somewhat OCD-ish nature sometimes makes me grind my teeth at inconsistent details and plot or visual points that flat-out make no sense. But I then remind myself that the writers' and producers' choices must favor telling dramatic stories over rigid authenticity on every point. Sometimes I think they could do better on the logic and consistency without sacrificing the drama. Sometimes they seem to not be trying for logic and consistency at all, which can be annoying. But by and large, I've been mightily entertained over the last 50 years. So I try to give them the benefit of the doubt.

What annoys me about the bridge window in the JJprise (and now Discovery) is that it feels (to me) like it's outside the broad Trek design norm. In fact, it feels like one of the many Star Wars-isms Abrams imported into his Star Trek movies. Now, I like Star Wars, too, but I don't want Star Trek to feel and look like Star Wars. And when I see through a window on a starship control deck that debris or a rebel fighter is about to crash through it, it feels like Star Wars. When a Star Trek ship goes to warp and the effect looks like jumping to lightspeed, it feels like Star Wars. And many other examples. And when I see those things in a Star Trek movie (or show), it takes me out of the entertainment experience I came to see. It feels like something else, something non-Star Trek. And THAT'S why the blasted window bothers me. The Millenium Falcon needs a cockpit window; the Enterprise does not.

TL;DR -- The bridge window is a design choice, not intended to be logical in the real world. And it's distracting because it's not very "Star Trek-y", but feels imported from elsewhere.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

View attachment 2734

 

[TonyC]

I'm probably in the minority now with Discovery's 'final' design out, but the ship just doesn't do it for me, and neither did the Ent D, they just have a look that's "off" to me The D was too comfy for my tastes, like a high end hotel in space,and the Discovery feels like the ugly duckling that no one wanted in high school, but at the reunion, everyone's trying to dance with her lol

Her design is just too strange for me to wrap my head around, like she should be a SW vessel, not a ST one. If I were going to serve on the Discovery, I think I'd ask if the USS Caine was around. (Bad 'Caine Mutiny' joke.)

I guess she just doesn't look like a 'hero' ship to me, like when I was choked up when the Enterprise self destructed over the Genesis planet, I don't think I'll be too broken up if the Discovery was destroyed. (I did get a little choked up when the Ent D was destroyed though.) The new phasers and communicators seem a little more closer to what I'd consider "Prime", so that's good.

 

[fireproof78]

Exactly. While the decision to put the bridge at the top of the saucer may have been influenced by naval history and the backgrounds of Roddenberry and Justman, undoubtedly it was mostly a design decision. Look at the very first shot we see in the very first Star Trek episode filmed ("The Cage") -- we zoom in on the ship in flight and come in through a clear dome on top of the center of the saucer, revealing the bridge, humming with activity, centered on our brave captain. It's a shot designed to introduce the ship and captain in a dramatic way, in a mid-1960s action-adventure TV series. That was the bottom line for a lot of decisions made about that original Star Trek series, and it still is today. Make no mistake about it.



Several people have made this point; I just quoted @fireproof78 because it was put succinctly. I've been a fan of every incarnation of Star Trek for a very long time (to a greater or lesser extent), including the Abrams films, and I'm looking forward to Discovery. My somewhat OCD-ish nature sometimes makes me grind my teeth at inconsistent details and plot or visual points that flat-out make no sense. But I then remind myself that the writers' and producers' choices must favor telling dramatic stories over rigid authenticity on every point. Sometimes I think they could do better on the logic and consistency without sacrificing the drama. Sometimes they seem to not be trying for logic and consistency at all, which can be annoying. But by and large, I've been mightily entertained over the last 50 years. So I try to give them the benefit of the doubt.

What annoys me about the bridge window in the JJprise (and now Discovery) is that it feels (to me) like it's outside the broad Trek design norm. In fact, it feels like one of the many Star Wars-isms Abrams imported into his Star Trek movies. Now, I like Star Wars, too, but I don't want Star Trek to feel and look like Star Wars. And when I see through a window on a starship control deck that debris or a rebel fighter is about to crash through it, it feels like Star Wars. When a Star Trek ship goes to warp and the effect looks like jumping to lightspeed, it feels like Star Wars. And many other examples. And when I see those things in a Star Trek movie (or show), it takes me out of the entertainment experience I came to see. It feels like something else, something non-Star Trek. And THAT'S why the blasted window bothers me. The Millenium Falcon needs a cockpit window; the Enterprise does not.

TL;DR -- The bridge window is a design choice, not intended to be logical in the real world. And it's distracting because it's not very "Star Trek-y", but feels imported from elsewhere.

My only disagreement on this point is that it is too much "Star Wars" in "Star Trek." And I get that this is a purely subjective tastes topic. Overall, I do agree that design decisions were made because "writers, artistic and story" came before strict design adherence.

Personally, I would rather the two find a healthy balancing point of a mix, rather than separate houses. Maybe Abrams introduced too much Star Wars to the franchise, but I'm ok with it. I mean, it's not like Star Trek's demonstration of the warp speed effect is realistic or consistent any way.

Same thing with the window. Starships have windows-always have and always will. There is something innately psychological about it that doesn't marry it to one specific franchise. From "2001" to "The Martian" it simply is part of science fiction.

It's simply one more design aesthetic that made for fun, dynamic shots in the cinema. Again, an artistic choice.

 

[Mudd]

TL;DR -- The bridge window is a design choice, not intended to be logical in the real world. And it's distracting because it's not very "Star Trek-y", but feels imported from elsewhere.

I can see that - but one of the things that killed Star Trek in the long run was frankly that nothing was being "imported" from anywhere. It had become so hermetic that far too many creative decisions were too clearly either "Star Trek-y" or clearly "not Star Trek-y."

How can they go where no one has gone before if the creators are too timid to even go where old Star Trek TV shows have not gone before?