Spoilers Starship Design in Star Trek: Picard

[Timo]

Which is a bit of a mystery in itself. At times, the heroes pissed off folks who were not particularly backward. Why did not the villains of "Fight or Flight" finish them off already? Okay, perhaps they were saved by their vulnerability, the enemy just toying with them until help arrived. And similar considerations helped in "Silent Enemy". But there's no good reason to assume that all the villains of the 22nd century would lack the standard armaments of the 23rd, 24th, 29th or the 349th.

There may well be a mechanism that protects lesser species from the wrath of those who use 349th century standard weapons. But we learn of no mechanism that would protect Archer-level folks from Kirk-level or Picard-level threats, even though we closely follow both Kirk and Picard.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Timo]

I have a thing about keeping leaders safe and operational. I feel like them being able to operate in safety is going to make making combat decisions more helpful in ensuring the shields, the guns or the engines are functioning at optimal capacity.

If the shields fail a good leader can find a way to recover. We have seen that time and time again in Trek.

The pushback against this is very strange to me.

We readily accept that the guns and engines of a Trek ship have to be placed in a vulnerable location. That is, we accept this completely without explanation or excuse. Why couldn't the engines be buried inside the ship?

I don't quite see why we should treat the bridge any different there, then. Implicitly, there's a pros/cons balance for placing it where it sits, and the pros of hulltop position trump the cons. Just as with the pros of pylontip placement trump the cons for warp engines.

Why argue that something we see in Trek is wrong, when we don't know the rules but can see the results? And why apply a double standard there? It seems more apt to argue for the sort of rules that provide the results, even when, and because, the writers don't give those rules to us. That's not pushback, that's pushing the sled forward towards the supposed goal.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[fireproof78]

For what it's worth the bridge of the NX-01 was not once destroyed in ENT except possibly in an alternate timeline that was erased from existence. That ship had no shields whatsoever and was built over 100 years before TOS yet even during the mission in the Delphic Expanse did not suffer catastrophic damage to the bridge or lose it despite a lot of the rest of the vessel being significantly damaged.

Perhaps the bridge being on top was a human thing?

 

[fireproof78]

We readily accept that the guns and engines of a Trek ship have to be placed in a vulnerable location. That is, we accept this completely without explanation or excuse. Why couldn't the engines be buried inside the ship?

Because that wasn't apart of the design language of the ship. Even Jefferies figured the engines would be radioactive and would thus be appropriate to move outside of the rest of the ship.

And, no I don't "readily accept" it. To me, the reason why Starfleet designs endure is because they are iconic, not because they make sense.

Why argue that something we see in Trek is wrong, when we don't know the rules but can see the results? And why apply a double standard there?

I would love to know what the pro is for having the bridge in a vulnerable position. The engines have been rationalized away, I'll grant that. Though, again, with starship designs over the years that has changed because the engines are now being placed within the hull, so apparently that pro went by the wayside.

 

[Timo]

And a Klingon thing, it seems. Perhaps not a Romulan thing, despite the suggestive dome on top of their TOS/ENT/PIC design?

It may be telling that a supposed warrior race chooses the exposed location.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[cooleddie74]

Could be, and with humanity being the leading force behind and spearheading founder of the Federation the new unified Starfleet may have decided to stick closely to United Earth designs for its starships, in much the same way that more than a few militaries around the world tend to emulate, say, American dress or rank systems for their own personnel following their own emergence as modern armed forces. The success of human starships in the Earth-Romulan War could have persuaded the Vulcans, Andorians and Tellarites that those designs may have been the way to go if not exclusively then largely.

 

[Timo]

Because that wasn't apart of the design language of the ship.

What wasn't? Buried engines? But buried bridges weren't, either.

Even Jefferies figured the engines would be radioactive and would thus be appropriate to move outside of the rest of the ship.

Which is the one rationalization that doesn't really work, when the pylons place the engines as close to the "habitat" saucer as possible...

And, no I don't "readily accept" it. To me, the reason why Starfleet designs endure is because they are iconic, not because they make sense.

...So you hate exposed engines, too? Just wanted to be clear on that.

I would love to know what the pro is for having the bridge in a vulnerable position.

#metoo. Or having the main guns face up and down rather than forward on that saucer (TMP was the one that started this particular offense). Or having those impulse engine glowing bits that don't point aft. But while Scotty isn't telling us, I presume he does know.

Though, again, with starship designs over the years that has changed because the engines are now being placed within the hull, so apparently that pro went by the wayside.

One Starfleet design opted for buried engines. Then again, a thousand alien designers never believed in nacelles. So the underlying factor here is that Starfleet is making choices, and so are others - and these things hang on such a tender balance that all sorts of different choices can be declared good and optimal and superior.

Why Starfleet has stayed true to a single design course, basically never veering off after NX-01, is quite a mystery. But many other players have done the same. Perhaps the underlying issue here actually is that it doesn't matter at all, and thus boils down to pure aesthetics? The survivability of Starfleet bridges in practice certainly suggests it's no issue at all.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[cooleddie74]

And the bridge being top and center isn't even an NX-class innovation. The Intrepid-class starships that are older also had the bridge in the same location on the primary hull.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

It doesn’t matter where you put the bridge since once the shields are down, the ship is cardboard and it’s over (TWOK, GEN).

 

[Timo]

Except when you built no shields in the first place, like cooleddie74 pointed out. Perhaps people are nice to you when you fly a wimpy ship? Sort of like how wearing glasses protects nerds. We get this rationale for the Klingons already ("Return to Grace")...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[David cgc]

It doesn’t matter where you put the bridge since once the shields are down, the ship is cardboard and it’s over (TWOK, GEN).

In TWOK, the Enterprise took a photon torpedo directly to the bridge without shields, and all it did was throw more sparks than usual. So, yeah, the bridge certainly doesn't seem to be very vulnerable for how exposed it is.

 

[The Old Mixer]

I would love to know what the pro is for having the bridge in a vulnerable position.

It's obviously not vulnerable, whatever the reason, or they and some other interstellar powers (e.g., Klingons) wouldn't be putting their bridges up there.

 

[fireproof78]

It's obviously not vulnerable, whatever the reason, or they and some other interstellar powers (e.g., Klingons) wouldn't be putting their bridges up there.

Star Trek logic wins again.

Then I'm sticking with my petition for all bridges to have windows.

 

[Longinus]

Just look at the size of the "Main Computer Core" on the Galaxy Class and Intrepid Class.

Where can I see them?

Look how much smaller the Intrepid Class is, yet it can do WAY more computing then the Galaxy Class at a fraction of it's power consumption and far less volume.

Can it though?

 

[Longinus]

I would love to know what the pro is for having the bridge in a vulnerable position.

The answer is very obvious to anyone who knows how to build warp capable space craft!

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

I'm just going to leave this here:

 

[cooleddie74]

Can it though?

Probably. Bioneural gel pack circuitry is alluded to as being more advanced than isolinear optical computer technology so I'm guessing that Voyager's main computer core can do more and faster than the Enterprise-D's could.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

We readily accept that the guns and engines of a Trek ship have to be placed in a vulnerable location. That is, we accept this completely without explanation or excuse. Why couldn't the engines be buried inside the ship?

Have you forgotten about our beloved "Defiant Class"?

The Engines are nice and buried into the main structure, with ablative armor.

We could use more of that Ablative armor, even between decks so that should beam weaponry penetrate one deck, it'll take time before it can get through another deck.

=D

 

[Spock Must Diet!]

I submit that the bridge does not need to be the best protected component. The warp core does. If you lose antimatter containment, bye-bye.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Where can I see them?