And what's "modern" now may not be what works best in the future.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
And that's why I always keep up with general technology IRL.
It's one of my many hobbies that I follow.
I make sure to see what's going on in tech, in warfare, in combat, etc and keep aprised of what's coming down the pipe.
Be it actual tech, or change in doctrines & philosophies.
Because I disagree with the base premise of pure logic.
Sure, but also runs counter to arguments made for view screens and that the majority of on screen evidence is that bridge on top works.
As with most designs in Trek, it has its ups and downs.
On the Shenzhou it moved.
Ok, one instance. I guess a huge majority of onscreen ships have the bridge on top and has not proven to be a significant issue. Even in the 32nd century.
Okay, so you don't like pure logic.
I'm sure the Vulcans wouldn't be fond of hanging out with you.
They're one of Humanity's greatest & most important allies.
The world could stand to learn a lot from Vulcans.
It works because it's been copied & pasted throughout the franchises existence.
It's been written to work because the writers allowed it to work unchallenged.
Obviously.
1x Time, post 22nd Century, during 1x very early generation in StarFleet's history.
They obviously settled for a design standard and hasn't really deviated since then.
That's because it's what is shown on screen and written that way.
I want to change it for obvious logical reasons.
You guys object to it for "Tradition's Sake".
No.
Didn't say this. Flawed premise led to flawed conclusion. I disagree with the base premise of logic alone for ship design.
And I'm more of a Stoic so Vulcans and I could enjoy each other's company. Not that it has any bearing here.
Same with the view screen arguments. It's been repeated time and again yet the window violated this so it shouldn't be changed?
Wouldn't that be evidence that it works?
It has nothing to do with tradition. I'm using the exact same logic as your arguments that on screen evidence points towards success with the view screen and extending it to the bridge on top.
I want a window.
It has nothing to do with tradition but working inside the rules established by Star Trek. Having not traveled in space I would be curious to hear arguments for and against.
Let me try another way of putting it.
You've heard the phrase, "If it isn't broke, don't fix it?"
Can very much be applied to this.
<rolls up sleeves>
Bridge Windows
Next to useless on vehicles that travel at even orbital velocities. Anything the size of a ship is going to whiz by so fast you're not going to see it, unless the objects get pointlessly nose to nose at sub-airliner velocities the way that post-TOS shows portray them.
The bridge gets plopped on top because navy, and you can push the camera in on the ship to say "this is where we are." That's all. Anyway, navy ships put the bridge high, but bury the CIC in a less vulnerable spot. No windows in the latter.
And, yes, Probert wanted to bury the bridge deep in the ship. Roddenberry said, "put it back on top."
Fans Who Focus on the Technical Stuff
Are a small minority of fans I've ever encounters, and the shows are not about catering to that. It's in the writer/director guides that the shows are about the people, and the tech is in support of the storytelling. Said tech is only required to be plausible enough to tell the story. Per the original, Joe Friday doesn't stop to explain how his police .38 works. It just works.
Science Writers with Drama Writers
If you want believable science to be part of the show, you can't use the "tech the tech" solution that Trek has employed since TNG, because what you end up with is technobabble Mad Libs as we've suffered through for decades. Neither can you have separate drama writers and tech writers. You need one or two people who not only understand science but also understand storytelling, so that the science can lead to realistic exciting and dramatic problems for the characters to face and exciting and dramatic solutions. They can't be separate; otherwise, they're just science consultants and technobabble providers, and the shows have had those throughout.
And I'm out.
Bridge Windows
Next to useless on vehicles that travel at even orbital velocities. Anything the size of a ship is going to whiz by so fast you're not going to see it, unless the objects get pointlessly nose to nose at sub-airliner velocities the way that post-TOS shows portray them.
The bridge gets plopped on top because navy, and you can push the camera in on the ship to say "this is where we are." That's all. Anyway, navy ships put the bridge high, but bury the CIC in a less vulnerable spot. No windows in the latter.
And, yes, Probert wanted to bury the bridge deep in the ship. Roddenberry said, "put it back on top."
Fans Who Focus on the Technical Stuff
Are a small minority of fans I've ever encounters, and the shows are not about catering to that. It's in the writer/director guides that the shows are about the people, and the tech is in support of the storytelling. Said tech is only required to be plausible enough to tell the story. Per the original, Joe Friday doesn't stop to explain how his police .38 works. It just works.
Science Writers with Drama Writers
If you want believable science to be part of the show, you can't use the "tech the tech" solution that Trek has employed since TNG, because what you end up with is technobabble Mad Libs as we've suffered through for decades. Neither can you have separate drama writers and tech writers. You need one or two people who not only understand science but also understand storytelling, so that the science can lead to realistic exciting and dramatic problems for the characters to face and exciting and dramatic solutions. They can't be separate; otherwise, they're just science consultants and technobabble providers, and the shows have had those throughout.
And I'm out.
I mean, I literally and explicitly indicated that the category described in what I numbered (1) included "fanfic, head canon, ideas that an individual fan thinks are interesting." I'm perfectly willing to adopt whatever the accepted umbrella term is for fan-created content that would also cover technical drawings and descriptions of how tech is supposed to work. To me, I don't see any kind of substantive difference between that and fan fiction, insofar as that it is fan-created content that is imagined to exist in continuity, when it has not been established canonically that it does. Any kind of timeline of tech progression has at least some essential qualities of fan fiction as an expression of a sequence of events imagined to have occurred in-universe, even if it lacks specific characters, narrative, or story.
And if I've been too sloppy in my use of terminology, because I'm just trying to post in a way that doesn't eat up my whole day, Sorry, everybody!
I won't presume to speak for anyone else besides me, but I kinda assume that everyone here is a Star Trek fan, and is already entertained by at least some of the corporate product.
To be blunt, the onus is on you to prove that your ideas are more entertaining than what we already have and what is coming down the pike*.
And what form do your ideas exist in? We're getting a new season of SNW in a few days with the bridge on top of the saucer. That's going to be streamed on the Internet directly into my house and to the devices of many others! How are you going to fix that? Spoiler: You aren't! You have zero say in this. Yet we could be entertained by SNW. I have been, so far. I'm hoping it will continue to do so.
You've put the cart waaaay before the horse.
I've tried to be constructive, but if this is where it ends up, yeah, I agree, whatevers!
Last edited:
What Flaw is there in the premise?
Is the Bridge not safer over-all if buried vs exposed on top?
All other things being equal, you'll have the exact same shields, you'll have armor.
Putting more things in the way of the Bridge vs the enemy would make it safer in a worst case scenario.
Ok, if the Window Violated the old classic View Screen and you could accept that change.
Why can't you accept moving the Bridge into another position on the vessel?
I'm not saying there won't be other windows else where aboard the ship, there will be plenty of windows.
Why does the Bridge itself need a Window if it's in a more secure / harder to hit location buried deep within the ship?
You refuse to entertain the idea of changing it because you want to see outside, even though 99.99% of the time you'd be focusing on the main view screen or what's on your computer terminal display at your work station instead of staring outside.
If you need to see outside for psychological reasons, there are plenty of windows else-where on the vessel for you to go to to see outside.
I can easily write a few lines of dialogue creating back story showing the failure of the placement and why it's location would be changed moving forward in time.
It's not hard to justify why changes would be made in universe.
Obviously, you like having Windows in your Command Center. I find the placement illogical from a tactical PoV.
Command Centers should be fortified bunkers that have no obvious weak points.
Then I'll proceed to break it repeatedly in story line and provide a justification so UFP / StarFleet changes the design.
Happy?
I'll even make it a point to easily take out the enemy who has their bridge on top by clearly cutting off the head of the snake repeatedly in show to prove a point as to why everybody else in the UFP has moved their bridge location away from the top. I'll even show older StarFleet ships getting their bridge blown off and incapacitating the vessel, leading to either a hostile take-over or the vessel getting destroyed.
Sorry, I don't have that kind of writing power because I'm not part of the Trek writing team, I wish I was.
If I had that kind of access, I'd offer plenty of useful in-universe / lore changes that would flow seamlessly into the background since it would be part of the background world detail / lore.
So we as fans can't discuss changes for what we want to see in Trek?
Apparently, it's too controversial to change decades old tradition.
Apparently "I'm a Maverick" because I challenge the existing orthodoxy that everybody else is used to.
That's "Way too controversial" for this thread because I want to move the Bridge around.
It's not like we haven't had other controversial topics throughout the life of this thread.
Is StarFleet a Military Organization?
Money in the UFP?
What type of Government is the UFP?
I'm sure there are plenty more controversial topics in this thread.
But me "moving the Bridge location", apparently that's the straw that broke the camel's back.
Last edited:
Dude.
Speaking just for myself, if you'd said that the bridge shouldn't have been at the top of the saucer and left it at that, I'm pretty sure that would have gone done fine as a possibly controversial opinion. But you've created a mountain to go a long with it. You've asked people to think of you as our reference master, as the author of our tech books. You've implied that your way is the logical way, and anything else that contradicts it is not logical. I just don't believe that's going to fly!
I like the bridge at the top of the saucer.
Apparently it's "Too Controversial" since you guys straight up hate the idea of moving it.
Because you wanted me to justify the position. So I did.
I never said I was YOUR reference master, I just create lore in the form of Technical Manuals.
That's different from being YOUR reference master.
I think of my Head Canon works as a form of "Technical Manual".
Doesn't mean it's your "Technical Manual".
Mines is just a guide to my Head Canon & Ideas.
You obviously are free to insert your own Head Canon & Ideas.
Isn't that what this thread is for, debate & argument over ideas?
Or are we not here to discuss controversial ideas and debate about them?
Then prove me wrong, with logic, show me how making the Bridge Module more exposed, positioned in a more vulnerable obvious location is a superior design choice vs not doing that?
Not really. If shields go down and you're lobbing anti-matter warheads at eachother, You're fucked regardless of where you put the Captain's Chair.
Because it goes against 60 years of traditional Star Trek visual aesthetic.
Depends on how you define superior? I’m more likely to trust someone that doesn’t look like they are spoiling for a fight. Perception can be a powerful ally when opening lines of communications with new species.
Besides, they already bury sickbay and engineering deep within the ship, along with facilities for the crew to shelter in during battle. Then there’s the fact that Auxiliary Control is deep inside the ship. A backup bridge for when shit goes down.
The USS Defiant literally has Ablative Armor that was starting to get standardized as new standard feature across all StarFleet vessels in the 24th Century.,
And Ablative Hull Generator was new tech that Voyager Brought back.
That changes the game along with how the hull is structured in my 26th Century Head Cannon.
Every StarFleet Ship in my 26th Century Head Cannon has their Bridge Moved to near the center.
Each Bridge Module is made of Neutronium Alloy based shell around it.
The Bridge Module, Main Computer Room, Main Reactor Cores, and other critical areas get Neutronium Alloy shells around it.
The Skeletal Frame of the Vessel has a Neutronium Alloy impregnated into the outter surface layer to boost it's hardness & durability.
So the original Metal Skeletal Frame is harder & tougher, but not invulnerable.
Every Floor & Wall Layer would have StarShip grade Ablative Armor Panels making it hard to blast through from any side.
So burning through the vessel would take A LOT of weapons fire.
Every Ships Armor is of a higher tougher grade + Ablative Armor Panels + Ablative Hull Generator.
We also have Multiple Layers of Shields with Skin Shields, Bubble Shields, Floating Drone Shields, etc.
So even if they're chucking Normal M/A-M torpedoes at you w/o shields, you can take many hits before going down.
StarFleet vessels in my 26th Century Head Cannon are designed to be tough, much tougher than before.
StarFleet finally learns from the lessons of the past and prioritizes survivability on top of offense.
StarShip battles against near peers will be longer and more drawn out like 60-Minute Iron-Man Wrestling Matches where it takes quite a while to defeat each other.
Ah, because it's tradition.
Don’t underestimate the importance of tradition to people.
As in making it harder to defeat / destroy.
Then I'd suggest not:
1) Powering up weapons
2) Putting targeting sensor locks on the enemy vessel.
3) Loading up your Torpedoes into the Torpedo Tubes
4) Opening your Gun Barrels/Ports if you have them.
I'd suggest:
1) Opening up with Subspace Radio Communications in a common frequency & channel that isn't encrypted.
2) Trying to talk with them and engage in pleasantries first.
That's just common sense design.
Imagine if the Main Bridge had a similar location to the BackUp Bridge.
Then you wouldn't have to worry about transfering to the BackUp Bridge.
Smaller vessels like Voyager doesn't have a Auxiliary Bridge, a luxury they aren't afforded due to their size.
When it makes logical sense, I can see the value in that.
That buys you a few extra seconds. When the shields went down, it was still a death sentence.
That hasn't been seen since.
Seems like something for the head canon thread. Better yet, the Fan Fiction section.
It's Star Trek.
if anything, the issue is that we almost never see AuxCon used, even when it really should be
Similar threads
- Locked
